Evidence for God from Science

melanie wrote:I'm going to throw my 2 cents in. I have always understood the flood to be a global flood, I took scripture on absolute face value. I think there is real validity to the claim that when you start interpreting scripture as not literal then where do you draw the line? But there are some very thought provoking things to consider on looking closer. Language and literature is kinda up my alley and I think terms like 'the whole sky' can and could be used in a more figurative sense. I actually said to my husband just last night " did you see that lightning, it lit up the whole sky" that was from my perspective from out of my window it certainly in no way meant it lit up the 'whole' sky on a global scale, that is just silly. Dictionaries tell us that figurative language is language used in a non-literal way in order to add emphasis. This is not only seen in English or in modern language. <br abp="1149">Mount Ararat is 5137 metres above sea level. The highest mountain in Turkey, not a low lying foothill but certainly not near the highest mountain on a global scale. Mt Everest is 8,848 metres and there are over 100 mountains with heights over 7200 metres around the world. So from a local perspective apart from Mt Ararat all the mountains would have been covered over.<br abp="1150">Noah lived somewhere east of Eden, the Tigris and Euphrates run through Eden which are found in Turkey. The ark floated around on the water in a very localised area, with the ark resting on Mt Ararat. <br abp="1151">I think from that perspective it is a possibility that the 'whole sky' and "all the mountains being covered over" could be from a localised viewpoint.

I don't have a problem with the idea that the phrase "the whole sky" can refer in some cases to a localized region. My objection, which no one seems to be addressing, is that there is no warrant for taking it that way in Genesis 7 and significant warrant for taking it literally. But I could argue that you are arguing from English rather than from Hebrew and that there ARE linguistic reasons to say that "the whole heaven" in Hebrew cannot be used as it can in English. The phrase is found fourteen times that I am aware of in the whole OT. They are:

Gen 7:19
Deut 2:25
Deut 4:19
Job 28:24
Job 37:3
Job 41:11
Dan 7:27
Dan 9:12

There is no way you can argue that ANY of those instances refer to a localized region. So why should we take Gen 7:19 to be an exception? Especially when, as I said above, the entire thrust of the passage (following Hebrew composition) is the universal nature of the judgment. Why say "the whole heaven" when you can just say "heaven" or "sky"? The word "whole" or "entire" has a pragmatic effect. It is a matter of emphasis. And it is an emphasis set next to not only mountains, but high mountains; set next to not only covering waters, but prevailing waters; set next not only to flesh being destroyed, but ALL flesh being destroyed; set next not only to the waters prevailing greatly, but EXCEEDINGLY greatly. Now, you may not know Hebrew, but I do. And what I can tell you about Hebrew composition is that one of the ways you get across ideas is by repetition and thematic emphasis. To take one practical example, go to 2 Sam 11 (the story of David and Bathsheba). Notice that her name is used only once. Every other time she is referred to simply as "the woman" or as "Uriah's wife," the most damning statement being near the end of the story: "When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead." Some feminist scholars have objected to the author's objectification here of Bathsheba, as he does not refer to her by name. But that misses the point. The very point (which is brought out later in Nathan's parable) is that David as stolen something dear from someone else, and then we continue the discussion from there.

So what I am trying to get you all to see is that this is just how Hebrew composition works. The OEC reading just plainly ignores the thematic intent that Moses is emphasizing. And in response, it simply explains away all of those elements individualistically. In other words, you aren't looking at what the narrative is saying. And that's a very similar problem to what OECs are doing with Genesis 1. You seek to explain away individual elements rather than looking at the whole narrative is driving at, and you are doing THAT because you are trying to fit the text with your preconceived worldview rather than trying to see what MOSES' worldview was.

-------------------------------------------------

Kurieuo wrote:Jac, I think you're being a bit misleading here.

I did not come to defend Ross, but rather what I feel is a misrepresentation.
You mention taking Ross at his "word", but what "word" was that and where did Ross say it?

Creator and the Cosmos, either the 2nd or 3rd edition. It's been many years since I read it.

And beyond that, I just point you to what I've pointed to elsewhere--namely, an article on Ross' own site that says:

• earliest statements claim that Irenaeus, Origen, Basil, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas taught that the creation days were long periods of time, which Mook rejects as incorrect.4 In later books, Ross has backed away from many of those claims but still argues that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and several others taught that the days of creation were 1,000 years each. Mook concludes that while Ross become more nuanced in his claims, he remains substantially wrong.5
  
  Unfortunately, few old earth creationists have written about the church fathers and what little they have written is often poor quality (with Stanley Jaki as a notable exception).6 This scarcity of solid resources is part of what motivated me to research this issue for myself.
  
  Based on my own research, no early church father taught any form of a day-age view or an earth older than 10,000 years. In fact, the first people that I can clearly identify as teaching the old-earth view are Isaac Newton and Thomas Burnet in the late seventeenth century. This seems like a fatal blow to old-earth creationism and a strong vindication of Mook’s position but closer examination shows otherwise.

So far from being a misrepresentation, what I said was absolutely accurate. OECs have historically been mistaken in their appeal to the CFs.

If you truly finally investigated the supporting quotes Ross uses, and found them very mistakenly used, then how about providing some of them here so others can judge for themselves?

I hope that the citation about is enough to satisfy your curiosity. When Ross' own website admits its mistakes, then I think my claim is more than justified. In any case, all I said was that I took him at his word. Now, if you want to suggest that I misunderstood him, then fine (even as he admits his mistake!). But that wouldn't change anything, because it still would not change the fact that I got my incorrect ideas from Ross (even if wrongly interpreted), and that explains the problem Rick is raising.

You know I've read Ross too, and he presents references so people to decide for themselves.
He doesn't tell people what to believe. Just what he believes and why.
And people can decide for themselves from there. Just like I decided for myself.
And its a choice I don't see many prominent YEC's so graciously give to Christians (e.g., quote in RickD's signature a case in point).

Poisoning the well is hardly becoming. And if you want to play tit for tat, then here:

• Appearance of age claims that God created a world with a false history. Such a claim is directly refuted by the Bible, which claims that God's creation declares His glory and righteousness. Nowhere does any biblical author make the claim that God's word contradicts any historical facts. Ultimately, the claim that the God of creation would lie to us with a false history of the universe, is a direct attack on the righteous character of God and cannot be tolerated within the Church! The God who would deceive His creatures with lies is not the God of the Bible. A Christian friend first presented this deceiver God to me as a senior in high school. Assuming he was correct, I rejected the "God of the Bible" as being unworthy of my worship. It wasn't until many years later that I read the Bible for myself and came to faith in Jesus Christ - the God who is the truth - my Creator. Why are those who advocate a deceiver God surprised when unbelievers reject their unrighteous God? (emphasis original!)

Or how about an entire article by Patheos titled "Young-Earth Creationists Make God Out to Be a Liar"? And elsewhere, Ross quotes no less an authority than Norman Geisler, who said, "To say that God created them with the appearance of age does not satisfy the question of how their light reached us. We have watched star explosions that happened billions of years ago, but if the universe is not billions of years old, then we are seeing light from stars that never existed because they would have died before Creation. Why would God deceive us with the evidence? The old earth view seems to fit the evidence better and causes no problem with the Bible." And one final example, here is a link to a podcast on Reasons to Believe in which YEC is accused of making God "deceptive" and that YEC, in that regard, is "alarming." (Go to about 20 minutes in.) That's hardly the cordial debate he says they want to have.

So let's not pretend like YECs are the only divisive ones here.

So others here can make up there own minds what to think, I'll present some of Ross' references.
We have some of the following writings on the Genesis creation days from various early "Christian Fathers" (aka theologians):

Irenaeus said: Thus, then, in the day they eat, in the same did they die... For it is said, "There was made in the evening, and there was made in the morning one day." Now in this same day that they did eat, in that also did they die. ... On one and the same day on which they ate they also died (for it is one day of creation)... He (Adam) did no overstep the thousand years, but died within their limit... for since "a day of the Lord is as a thousand years," he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them."

Augustine wrote in the 'The City of God': "As for these 'days,' [Genesis creation days] it is difficult, perhaps impossible to think let alone explain in words what they mean."

In 'The Literal Meaning of Genesis' Augustine writes: "But at least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar."

Elsewhere in the same book he writes: Seven days by our reckoning after the model of the day of creation, make up a week. By the passage of such weeks time rolls on, and in these weeks one day is constituted by the course of the sun from its rising to its settings; but we must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them.

Origen also wrote of the first six days as representing the time of work for men, and the seventh (Sabbath) day, lasting the full duration of the world: 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.
Belief that the days of Genesis 1 may not have been ordinary days existed long before modern science emerged.
And these ideas from CFs who took many of the now canonical books just as seriously as we do, even if they didn't have a statement like the Chicago Statement which endorses a Historical-Grammatical method when reading Scripture.

And the implication is that Irenaeus and Augustine held to OEC? Again, let me point back to Reasons.org:

• Justin Martyr (Dialog with Trypho, A Jew 81) and Irenaeus (Against Heresies 5.23.2) are sometimes mistakenly cited as teaching long creation days on the basis of equating “day” with a thousand years. This is a common error and we see it, for example, in Hugh Ross, A Matter of Days (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2004), 43. A day as a thousand years was never applied to the creation days themselves, only to post-creation history.

Look, if you want to talk about what the CFs actually taught, then let's start a thread on it. You pick the CF you think is most clearly OEC and we'll walk through what that CF actually wrote and not what Ross says they were talking about. My point for now, is simply this: 1) NO CF TAUGHT OEC (but many taught YEC), and 2) OEC advocates have a history of misusing the CFs in their defense of OEC and they are now admitting that themselves.

What does this mean?
Well it means there was really no "literal" interpretation whether OEC or YEC by today's same standards.
It is therefore unreasonable to expect to find ANY "literal" Historical-Grammatical interpretation from someone who believed Scripture was inerrant and divinely inspired by modern Evangelical standards.
Therefore, to use this in an argument against an opposition is to setup an unreasonable burden of proof.

Incorrect. There were many who insisted on a literal interpretation. To give you only one example, here is what Basil said:

• And there was evening and there was morning: one day.” And the evening and the morning were one day. Why does Scripture say “one day the first day”? Before speaking to us of the second, the third, and the fourth days, would it not have been more natural to call that one the first which began the series? If it therefore says “one day”, it is from a wish to determine the measure of day and night, and to combine the time that they contain. Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day—we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day.

For the record, Augustine also held to an ordinary day interpretation, as did Irenaeus. Ross misunderstands their eschatology and thus their use of Ps 90:4.

I think you would find even Hugh Ross agreeing that a literal OEC interpretation like Day-Age/Progressive Creation ONLY came about in the 20th century.
BUT, this does mean earlier ideas do not lend support to such interpretations. For example, those words from CFs that I quoted above.
I'll allow others here to make up their own minds about instead of dictating what they do/do not support.

None of the CFs you quote above supported OEC ideas, nor do the quotes you share support OEC ideas. You can say I'm not "allowing others to make up their own minds if you like." More poisoning of the well, if you ask me. But there's nothing at all virtuous in ripping the CFs out of context to have them teach something they never did. In fact, on the contrary, everyone you mentioned held YECs beliefs. They all held that the days of Genesis 1 were ordinary days and that creation was relatively recent. What they actually expected was a seven thousand year human history, that each day represents a post-creation age. For they allegorized the passage. Strictly, what they believed REALLY happened was that God created everything instantaneously a few thousand years ago.

SO, to argue that no CFs thought anything that lends support of a non-ordinary day interpretation of Scripture is easy to disprove and disingenuous.
And to make out that there is absolutely nothing from CFs to support yom (day) in Genesis as a non-ordinary day is very misleading, especially if you have looked into the references behind it all.

On the contrary, it is disingenuous to argue that the CFs were anything like OEC or that they held anything like OEC ideas. And, AGAIN, I note that this is something that OECs are now admitting themselves (see articles I linked to above). With all due respect, Scott, you are about a decade behind on this argument.

So I find your statement: "Someone would have done well to ask me to quote a church father or early Jewish interpreter who held to OEC" quite misleading.
And it is because of this, I've written this post as well as presented some references above that Hugh Ross himself uses.
People reading here can decide for themselves whether such supports an OEC, Day-Age or Progressive Creation position.

Finally, I'd argue that early non-modern scientific understandings may have lead interpreters of old even astray.
You say any OEC interpretation may be coloured by a modern scientific understanding, but equally any interpretation of old may have been coloured by a non-modern scientific understanding. Where does that leave us?
To provide an example, that the Earth was the centre of the universe was a scientific thought.
This influenced interpretation of Scripture.
And the RCC burnt themselves on Copernicus, who mind you was also just a Christian and scientist like Ross.

Of course geocentricism was wrongly read into Scripture. Do you see that, K? It was WRONGLY read into Scripture. It seems very odd that you would appeal to one heresy motivated by the science of the day to justify your appeal to the science of OUR day and say that we can read it into Scripture.

Where does it leave us? With a Bible that we ought to interpret on its own terms, apart from what the science of the day has to say.

Furthermore, we learn from examples like Copernicus that just because certain beliefs may find a home in a Traditional understanding such does not mean that the Traditional understanding is correct and true.
Just picture what Luther went through to resurface the true Gospel containing God's grace.

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. Therefore, the Bible is not true revelation. Science is. But that is a terribly dangerous game.

AND SO, to stress again here like I did elsewhere....
None of these arguments external to Scripture prove what is the truth of the matter and as such correct interpretation.
Interpretations must be judged on their own merits, particularly if we want to know what Scripture itself says (rather than others' interpretations of it).

As an aside to anyone reading, Jac and I have been around long enough on these issues.
There is no angst between Jac or myself here. And I strongly disagree that there is strength in Christians agreeing on every point.
I think to do so introduces a weakness into the true Church (aka all in Christ) and that the Holy Spirit has instrumentally used the many denominations.
As long as we still tolerate each other's positions, then we can stand in Christ united in our disagreement.

I want to affirm this. There is no angst between K and I. We are discussing a very important issue that has serious implications. We strongly disagree, but there's no loss of love between us and neither of us questions the other's salvation. We have simply known each other long enough that we can speak plainly in our understanding of these matters.

Jac: Second, I do NOT say the commonalities are "by mere happenstance." On the contrary, I have said it was intentional. What I object to is the suggestion that Moses' use of certain forms means that the words mean something other than what they normally do.

Comparing words has to be done in the context of their intended meaning. The writers clearly DID write so as to closely parallel as well as contrast with the Egyptian myths. So the meaning appears likely to be within that context.

Jac: I never said that anyone is "concluding that the universe and earth are ancient has only happened due to what one thinks the Bible teaches about the length of the Creation Days." I don't even know how you got that out of my words. You have it exactly backwards. I Say that people are concluding that the Bible teaches an ancient earth because what they think science says.

But you KNOW that they are not merely concluding this based ONLY upon the science or ONLY upon the text. And as for what I meant is that people are doing the science according to well-established and long validated techniques and procedures. They aren't just cherry-picking science facts that match up with their old earth and ancient universe beliefs. They don't do science one way for one project and another for discovering evidences related to Creation. They are sincerely and universally following the science where it appears to lead. Surely you aren't suggesting that because the so much scientific analysis and evidence seems to correlate so as to suggest OEC that both the method and even using typical scientific methodology is irrelevant. So as God well knew the methodology of modern science, and also that such methodologies would almost universally conclude that both the earth and universe are ancient, He nonetheless doesn't appear concerned that most would be fooled by using the very same tools and methodologies that have validated many other hypotheses. So does God, Whom gave us the ability to do scientific analysis and the expertise to develop scientific techniques and methods, not want us to use anything but a literal reading of Scripture (when much in it is figurative and thus not literal) to determine the truth of things? This is not a matter of man trying to delude or deceive ourselves, as most scientists sincerely are seeking the truth of things related to the age of the universe. There ARE things in Scripture that do not explain the science behind them, that before science discovered them, many studying Scripture would have come to different (and thus incorrect) scientific understandings. So why would God not want us able to easily realize a basic truth about the world and universe - one that matches up easily with Scripture? While it may not prove anything, it's nonetheless an obvious question to ponder.

"you cannot interpret science by Scripture."

No you can't, not if the Scriptures involved are not addressing a scientific issue or understanding - and therein lies a critical question.

Got to love you Jac.

Jac wrote:

K wrote:Jac, I think you're being a bit misleading here.

I did not come to defend Ross, but rather what I feel is a misrepresentation.
You mention taking Ross at his "word", but what "word" was that and where did Ross say it?

Creator and the Cosmos, either the 2nd or 3rd edition. It's been many years since I read it.

And beyond that, I just point you to what I've pointed to elsewhere--namely, an article on Ross' own site that says:

earliest statements claim that Irenaeus, Origen, Basil, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas taught that the creation days were long periods of time, which Mook rejects as incorrect.4 In later books, Ross has backed away from many of those claims but still argues that Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and several others taught that the days of creation were 1,000 years each. Mook concludes that while Ross become more nuanced in his claims, he remains substantially wrong.5

Unfortunately, few old earth creationists have written about the church fathers and what little they have written is often poor quality (with Stanley Jaki as a notable exception).6 This scarcity of solid resources is part of what motivated me to research this issue for myself.

Based on my own research, no early church father taught any form of a day-age view or an earth older than 10,000 years. In fact, the first people that I can clearly identify as teaching the old-earth view are Isaac Newton and Thomas Burnet in the late seventeenth century. This seems like a fatal blow to old-earth creationism and a strong vindication of Mook’s position but closer examination shows otherwise.
So far from being a misrepresentation, what I said was absolutely accurate. OECs have historically been mistaken in their appeal to the CFs.

Thanks Jac.

Good article you quoted there by Dr. John Millam.
Five parts and I only quickly read the first part you linked, but interested to read the rest.
It is also interesting that RTB do not wish to hide their cards, but be upfront and have it on-site (certainly a different picture from how I felt you presented Ross in the post that drew me out to respond).

What I'm interested in though, as stated in my previous post, is not whether any church fathers advocated a Day-Age view or even Earth being older than 10,000 years.
BUT, rather whether ideas on "day" (yom) being interpreted as other than an ordinary day were found in such Christian thought.
If they can be found, then such lends early authoritative support to a Day-Age interpretation.

This does not mean the CFs had a Day-Age interpretation.
It just means there is leeway for such interpretation.
*Understanding this is an important distinction. Do you see the difference here?

As for what Ross actually says, perhaps others were mislead by Ross's words (like yourself) into believing that a Day-Age interpretation had been held for 1000s of years. Based on Millam's own article, it certainly seems he was also under the impression that early church fathers were labelled Day-Age.
Truly, when I read Ross' books (and I have a few), while he might overstate matters at times in his excitement, I only ever took his statements to mean there is support for reading the "days" as other than an ordinary day AND THAT THIS is what lends support to a Day-Age interpretation.
The fact Ross uses Augustine who says 1 day could be as 1000 years, Ross has got to understand that this means Augustine wouldn't be Day-Age as we understand.
Augustine is not a Day-Ager by any modern means, but it does show that days could be other than ordinary days is found in his thinking.

Perhaps Ross overstates the case somewhere to say something like "early Christian fathers were actually Day-Age."
You know he also says that the Bible beat science to the punch when it comes to the "Big Bang" model of the universe.

Clearly matters are being overstated on the big bang model, but they're being overstated to make a point.
That point being that certain thoughts within the "big bang" model (a beginning point and heavens stretching out) can be found in Scripture.
I'm 100% sure he knows that the Bible is not a scientific book by any means and certainly doesn't describe any "Big Bang" model in specific detail.

Likewise, with early Christian fathers I don't see Ross as "really" saying they were Day-Age, only that their writings lead support to interpreting the days in Genesis as other than ordinary days. Maybe I'm wrong. We'd have to ask him directly.

YECs though equally like to just assume that CFs only allowed for ordinary days, and this is clearly not the case.

*So perhaps it is fair to say that there is some exaggeration of the truth on both sides of the debate here?

There is more I'd like to follow-up with, but I don't want to go too far.
I'd be interested to know if you would largely agree with what I've written here.
Particularly my questions with asterisks beside in this post.

Jac3510 wrote:Poisoning the well is hardly becoming. And if you want to play tit for tat, then here:

That wasn't my intention.
I don't see Deem as unfairly sniping either.
For, no offense, but I too think it also logically makes God deceitful if one revelation contradicts another.

It's just a logical conclusion as I see it.
BUT, I acknowledge that you don't agree with this nor are too concerned.

Like something you said to me regarding my Panentheism views a while back, if you recall...
I think that you don't see a logical conclusion, for example, just like many Atheists don't see an objective morality as necessary to have real right and wrong.
Do you recall saying that to me? Good parallel example. What happened to that discussion? Not sure where we left it.

Jac wrote:So let's not pretend like YECs are the only divisive ones here.

Glad you concede that YECs are divisive.
They're the one poking the sticks in the faith of those who disagree
OECs wouldn't react back if YECs would just agree that a young Earth is wrong.
(Kurieuo poking stick in Jac)

Jac3510 said
None of the CFs you quote above supported OEC ideas, nor do the quotes you share support OEC ideas. You can say I'm not "allowing others to make up their own minds if you like." More poisoning of the well, if you ask me. But there's nothing at all virtuous in ripping the CFs out of context to have them teach something they never did. In fact, on the contrary, everyone you mentioned held YECs beliefs. They all held that the days of Genesis 1 were ordinary days and that creation was relatively recent. What they actually expected was a seven thousand year human history, that each day represents a post-creation age. For they allegorized the passage. Strictly, what they believed REALLY happened was that God created everything instantaneously a few thousand years ago.

Jac3510 You keep saying no one supported OEC ideas yet this Augustine quote proves you wrong as this is exactly what the Gap theory teaches that the first day starts in verse 3 of Genesis 1.YEC blend Genesis 1:1,2 and 3 together to get a young earth and overlook the first day starts in verse 3. Yet here is Augustine believing the earth was old and that the heavens and the earth were perfect when God first created the heavens and the earth and there was a Gap until God created this world and this is old earth creationism and long before modern day geology and evolution.This quote matches old earth Gap creationism not YEC.

Now I am not saying YEC was never taught as I know it was,and I would go so far as to say if you just read Genesis 1 without reading a lot of the other parts of the bible then you could very well interpret Genesis 1 the way YEC do,however not if you read the rest of the bible and then read Genesis 1 as it requires more biblical study to see an old earth and specifically the Gap theory not just reading Genesis 1 because there are parts of the bible in other books in both the old and new testaments that point to an old heavens and earth.I'm only proving that there has been an old earth view in the church too,which you deny.Read this quote from St. Augustine and know it is not talking about YEC but old earth Gap theory creationism.As we believe the heavens and earth were created perfect but when Lucifer rebelled God poured out judgment that caused it to become without form and void until God restored the earth and created this world we now live in since Adam and Eve.

“Chapter VIII—Heaven and Earth were made “In the beginning;” afterwards the world, during six days, from shapeless matter.
For very wonderful is this corporeal heaven; of which firmament between water and water, the second day, after the creation of light, Thou saidst, Let it be made, and it was made. Which firmament Thou calledst heaven; the heaven, that is, to this earth and sea, which Thou madest the third day, by giving a visible figure to the formless matter, which Thou madest before all days. For already hadst Thou made both an heaven, before all days; but that was the heaven of this heaven; because In the beginning Thou hadst made heaven and earth. But this same earth which Thou madest was formless matter, because it was invisible and without form, and darkness was upon the deep…”

Kurieuo wrote:Got to love you Jac.

Ditto!

BUT, rather whether ideas on "day" (yom) being interpreted as other than an ordinary day were found in such Christian thought.
If they can be found, then such lends early authoritative support to a Day-Age interpretation.

And this is what I am disputing. The CFs do NOT take yom as anything other than an ordinary day. Even the three Ross likes to cite (Irenaeus, Augustine, and Justin) all took the yomim to be ordinary days. What they did was take those ordinary days to refer by allegory to post-creation ages. Strictly, they did NOT believe that world was created in six solar days. They didn't believe an six ages of creation. They believed it happened instantaneously a few thousand years ago. But they took the yomim of Genesis 1 to be ordinary days.

The bottom line was that they did no take that part of Genesis 1 to be a literal history of the world. I object to that, of course. But I certainly wouldn't say that an allegorical/mythical interpretation is unprecedented in the CFs. On the contrary, it is common. What IS unprecedented is "yom being interpreted as other than an ordinary day."

This does not mean the CFs had a Day-Age interpretation.
It just means there is leeway for such interpretation.
*Understanding this is an important distinction. Do you see the difference here?

I do, and I object to the claim that such leeway exists. What I am trying to get you to see is the difference in taking yom to refer to an age (the OEC claim) and taking yom to refer to an ordinary day but then taking that ordinary day as a prophetic allegory for seven ages of post-creation human history (some CFs' claim). I object to the former because it is completely unprecedented prior the to twentieth century, but I appreciate that it attempts to take yom literally. I object to the latter because it is bad hermeneutics (it takes the account mythically/allegorically) but I appreciate that it actually does take yom literally.

Likewise, with early Christian fathers I don't see Ross as "really" saying they were Day-Age, only that their writings lead support to interpreting the days in Genesis as other than ordinary days. Maybe I'm wrong. We'd have to ask him directly.

His early work did make that claim, which is why the article I pointed to before acknowledges the misuse of the CFs. I appreciate his backing off those claims. What he now needs to do is be honest and admit that ALL CFs took the yomim as ordinary days and then try to explain why everyone had it wrong for 1900 years.

YECs though equally like to just assume that CFs only allowed for ordinary days, and this is clearly not the case.

*So perhaps it is fair to say that there is some exaggeration of the truth on both sides of the debate here?

I don't see any exaggeration on the YEC side. We are right in our treatment of the CFs. OECs are wrong and have been for a decade. They are now finally starting to concede that they are but now their argument has devolved into, "Well, OEC isn't in the CFs, but neither is YEC!" along with "at least some CFs didn't take the days to be ordinary days." And they are wrong on both accounts. As I said before, without exception:

1. All CFs (as far as we know) took the days to be ordinary days,
2. All CFs (as far as we know) took the flood to be global, and
3. All CFs (as far as we know) took the curse of Genesis 3 to include the whole creation

It is because of those facts that OECs are now writing five part articles like the ones I linked to before. At the end of the day, the distinction between OEC and YEC is simply this: YECs believe in letting the text speak for itself, whereas OECs believe in letting "the book of nature" (which is, to use their own words, "infallible"--I can provide many links to them making that claim if you like) determine what reading of the text we ought to adopt. As such, 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. Their goals are noble. They are attempting to read the text as good evangelicals ought to--literally. But their position has painted them into an impossible corner. A literal interpretation of the text leads to YEC. There's no way around that. So what they 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.

That wasn't my intention.
I don't see Deem as unfairly sniping either.
For, no offense, but I too think it also logically makes God deceitful if one revelation contradicts another.

It's just a logical conclusion as I see it.
BUT, I acknowledge that you don't agree with this nor are too concerned.

On the whole, I don't find YEC or OEC claims as being "unfair sniping." YEC claims OECs are compromising. And there is no doubt that YECs and OECs have a different view of God. We (YECs) see death as intrinsically evil and so God is oriented to it a certain way. You (OECs) do not, and so God is oriented to it in another way. What I DO object to is Rich's claim that YEC ought not be tolerated in the Church. That speaks to persecution, and what ought not be tolerated is that kind of wicked language.

Like something you said to me regarding my Panentheism views a while back, if you recall...
I think that you don't see a logical conclusion, for example, just like many Atheists don't see an objective morality as necessary to have real right and wrong.
Do you recall saying that to me? Good parallel example. What happened to that discussion? Not sure where we left it.

I vaguely remember that conversation. I think it left off with a mea culpa from me. I don't remember what happened. I'll have to look back into that later this week. Thanks for reminding me!

Glad you concede that YECs are divisive.
They're the one poking the sticks in the faith of those who disagree
OECs wouldn't react back if YECs would just agree that a young Earth is wrong.
(Kurieuo poking stick in Jac)

I have no problem being so poked! Of course YEC is divisive. All truth claims are. What I object to is the suggestion that OEC is not divisive and somehow is trying to take some moral high road. When you attempt that, whether you intend it or not, you ARE poisoning the well. And THAT is what I object so heavily to. THAT is why I have gone off the deep end before in the treatment Ham gets around here. It's not because I have any particular fondness for Ham as a YEC. It's because it points to something dishonest in that "defense" of OEC. Its' defamatory of YEC on the one hand and irrational of the OEC apologist on the other. It's nothing more than disingenuous sophistry and it ought be stopped. It is immoral, sinful, and violates the principle of charity. And I see that coming exclusively from the OEC camp.

As you note, I don't have a problem with talking about logical conclusions. If YEC is right, then Ham is logically right. 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. It DOES undermine the gospel insofar as it denies the intrinsic evil of death, and if you go as far as TEs tend to go, by denying the historicity of the Fall. That's not uncharitable or disingenuous. What IS uncharitable and disingenuous is the common OEC complaint against the character of Ham and YECs generally, the claim that he (and we) are somehow "divisive," the implication being that we are more divisive than they are. That's sinful, and that needs to stop. And you, K, knowing a few YECs pretty well, ought to know us well enough to be the first one to put down that kind of rhetoric from your side. It's shameful. By and large, for me, this can be a very reasonable, dispassionate debate. We can have fun and poke each other. We can come away more convinced than ever in our own positions and even with our love of Christ heightened. This debate doesn't need to be destructive. But when OECs take this particular line of attack, that's when all that changes, and the OEC claim "THEY STARTED IT!" doesn't help their case. They are lying about us, and they need to stop. Because at that point, we aren't talking about doctrinal differences that in the end are of secondary or even tertiary importance. At that point, our character is being assassinated, and that needs to stop.

edit:

And for completion, if any YECs attacks any OEC's character the way I've seen OECs attack YEC's like Ham, then they, too, are guilty of sin and ought to repent. I am saying that Ham's insistence that OEC is a compromise is not an attack of the OEC's character. But if such personal attacks or such attempts at poisoning the well are made, then they ought to be condemned, too.

Jac wrote
I don't have a problem with the idea that the phrase "the whole sky" can refer in some cases to a localized region. My objection, which no one seems to be addressing, is that there is no warrant for taking it that way in Genesis 7 and significant warrant for taking it literally. But I could argue that you are arguing from English rather than from Hebrew and that there ARE linguistic reasons to say that "the whole heaven" in Hebrew cannot be used as it can in English. The phrase is found fourteen times that I am aware of in the whole OT. They are:

Gen 7:19
Deut 2:25
Deut 4:19
Job 28:24
Job 37:3
Job 41:11
Dan 7:27
Dan 9:12

There is no way you can argue that ANY of those instances refer to a localized region. So why should we take Gen 7:19 to be an exception? Especially when, as I said above, the entire thrust of the passage (following Hebrew composition) is the universal nature of the judgment. Why say "the whole heaven" when you can just say "heaven" or "sky"? The word "whole" or "entire" has a pragmatic effect. It is a matter of emphasis. And it is an emphasis set next to not only mountains, but high mountains; set next to not only covering waters, but prevailing waters; set next not only to flesh being destroyed, but ALL flesh being destroyed; set next not only to the waters prevailing greatly, but EXCEEDINGLY greatly. Now, you may not know Hebrew, but I do. And what I can tell you about Hebrew composition is that one of the ways you get across ideas is by repetition and thematic emphasis. To take one practical example, go to 2 Sam 11 (the story of David and Bathsheba). Notice that her name is used only once. Every other time she is referred to simply as "the woman" or as "Uriah's wife," the most damning statement being near the end of the story: "When Uriah’s wife heard that her husband was dead." Some feminist scholars have objected to the author's objectification here of Bathsheba, as he does not refer to her by name. But that misses the point. The very point (which is brought out later in Nathan's parable) is that David as stolen something dear from someone else, and then we continue the discussion from there.

So what I am trying to get you all to see is that this is just how Hebrew composition works. The OEC reading just plainly ignores the thematic intent that Moses is emphasizing. And in response, it simply explains away all of those elements individualistically. In other words, you aren't looking at what the narrative is saying. And that's a very similar problem to what OECs are doing with Genesis 1. You seek to explain away individual elements rather than looking at the whole narrative is driving at, and you are doing THAT because you are trying to fit the text with your preconceived worldview rather than trying to see what MOSES' worldview was.

-------------------------------------------------

Jac I'm not trying to fit it into my preconceived worldview, as I stated I have always held to a worldwide flood and merely presented it as a possibility. I opened myself up to the possibility of another point of view that I have previously rejected as I take scripture in a more literal sense. I agree that it must be taken in context and that is why I have always understood the flood to be exactly what it states, worldwide. I still believe that to be so, but I like to ponder on differing ideas.
My concern is the same as yours. We have the divinely inspired word of God, from the first page to the last. When we start to believe in Gods creative process through evolution, that Adam and Eve were not literal and the flood did not occur in the way it is illustrated then when exactly does absolute truth kick in? When do we start interpreting the bible as literal? I personally start from page 1.
I do not believe that the Christian creation story is influenced by pagan creation myths, I believe it is the other way around. I have read that the evidence found to prove Christianity borrowed from paganism and that the pagan cuneiform inscriptions containing these myths are older than the origins of Genesis. The story of creation would have been passed down orally before Moses wrote the book of Genesis and other written sources could have been available to him. It has been portrayed that the creation story, including Adam and Eve, the flood and Jesus' life and resurrection are all 'borrowed' from paganism by those seeking to discredit the Bible and Christianity. What alarms me is that Christians are walking down the same road and buying into the same mis truths. The pagan myths are so similar because the have warped the central truth and incorporated it into their beliefs, the fact that they are so similar does not discredit the Pentateuch, I think it just goes to show that without divine guidance through Gods chosen and the Divine influence over Moses when penning them, the absolute truth was twisted, turned and misrepresented much like a very long long line of Chinese whispers. But the core truth was never lost, we have it, it's the bible, the inspired word of God from start to finish. If we allow ourselves to question the authenticity of Genesis, believing that it is not inspired by God but merely 'borrowed' from paganism we are discrediting the beginning chapter of our inspired word. Would you read a book by an author who claimed to be the writer, took credit for it, then it was found out that they didn't really write all of it, not even the start. The writer and the book would lose credibility. A bit like when everyone found out milli vanilli weren't singing their lyrics!
The same people and/or groups who have pushed this idea , have not just stuck to creation or the flood but apply the same principle to Jesus. So if Christians support the idea that Genesis is borrowed from paganism then we are giving credit to a viewpoint that seeks to do the same with the New Testament, our entire belief system, Christianity is under attack by those seeking to say that Christianity in its entirety is copied and borrowed from Pagan myths. It was started by Pagan religions and has spread to the general public now sadly to Christians. This is not by accident. I think it is more than a different perspective, I think it's dangerous and we need to hold tight and true to our faith and divinely inspired word.

Melanie, I think you have misunderstood the issue about the Egyptian and pagan gods and myths. It is not that Genesis borrows from or copies them. Christian/Hebrew scholars will 1) tell you that the pagan and Egyptian creation myths are considerably older; 2) That the Genesis creation accounts similarly parallel but make important and key contrasts due to their purpose of correcting over 400 years of Israel's absorbing those false myths, beliefs and gods through their captivity in Egypt; 3) And that the majority of the Christian scholars asserting the Genesis Creation accounts are about correcting false theological beliefs also very much believe they record real events and people, Adam and Eve's creation, and their fall into sin, as being actual and true and thus are NOT mere allegory. Those asserting these accounts are mere allegory are on a very dangerous and slippery slope - one that leads to not knowing what is allegory and what is not - concerning just about every important theological and doctrinal foundation found in Scripture - leaving no confidence that ANY of it means what it says.

Philip wrote:Melanie, I think you have misunderstood the issue about the Egyptian and pagan gods and myths. It is not that Genesis borrows from or copies them. Christian/Hebrew scholars will 1) tell you that the pagan and Egyptian creation myths are considerably older; 2) That the Genesis creation accounts similarly parallel but make important and key contrasts due to their purpose of correcting over 400 years of Israel's absorbing those false myths, beliefs and gods through their captivity in Egypt; 3) And that the majority of the Christian scholars asserting the Genesis Creation accounts are about correcting false theological beliefs also very much believe they record real events and people, Adam and Eve's creation, and their fall into sin, as being actual and true and thus are NOT mere allegory. Those asserting these accounts are mere allegory are on a very dangerous and slippery slope - one that leads to not knowing what is allegory and what is not - concerning just about every important theological and doctrinal foundation found in Scripture - leaving no confidence that ANY of it means what it says.

Did I go off on a tangent? That's so unlike me
Thanks Philip for steering me back on track
My view was tainted from hearing professed christians going down that path of believing parts of the bible are copied from pagan myths.

I just wanted to clarify I was never a fan of Milli Vanilli, I have much better musical taste than that!

Philip wrote:Melanie, I think you have misunderstood the issue about the Egyptian and pagan gods and myths. It is not that Genesis borrows from or copies them. Christian/Hebrew scholars will 1) tell you that the pagan and Egyptian creation myths are considerably older; 2) That the Genesis creation accounts similarly parallel but make important and key contrasts due to their purpose of correcting over 400 years of Israel's absorbing those false myths, beliefs and gods through their captivity in Egypt; 3) And that the majority of the Christian scholars asserting the Genesis Creation accounts are about correcting false theological beliefs also very much believe they record real events and people, Adam and Eve's creation, and their fall into sin, as being actual and true and thus are NOT mere allegory. Those asserting these accounts are mere allegory are on a very dangerous and slippery slope - one that leads to not knowing what is allegory and what is not - concerning just about every important theological and doctrinal foundation found in Scripture - leaving no confidence that ANY of it means what it says.

When the writers in the ANE wrote, they wrote for THEIR audience and, just like writers now, they would write with a motif and with words that people of that age understand in terms of cultural references ( Like Jesus using the term Hades to His Hellenistic audience).
Sometimes the writers did this and used pagan "mythology" ( I put it in quotations because myths are not what most think, they are not fables) and re-interpreted them based on YHWH as opposed to which ever god was the "original" one mentioned, it was polemic.
We must remember however that for the ANE writers and the writers and editors of the OT ( and NT), the existence of other "gods" was very real and not "make believe".

melanie wrote:

Jac I'm not trying to fit it into my preconceived worldview, as I stated I have always held to a worldwide flood and merely presented it as a possibility. I opened myself up to the possibility of another point of view that I have previously rejected as I take scripture in a more literal sense. I agree that it must be taken in context and that is why I have always understood the flood to be exactly what it states, worldwide. I still believe that to be so, but I like to ponder on differing ideas.
My concern is the same as yours. We have the divinely inspired word of God, from the first page to the last. When we start to believe in Gods creative process through evolution, that Adam and Eve were not literal and the flood did not occur in the way it is illustrated then when exactly does absolute truth kick in? When do we start interpreting the bible as literal? I personally start from page 1.
I do not believe that the Christian creation story is influenced by pagan creation myths, I believe it is the other way around. I have read that the evidence found to prove Christianity borrowed from paganism and that the pagan cuneiform inscriptions containing these myths are older than the origins of Genesis. The story of creation would have been passed down orally before Moses wrote the book of Genesis and other written sources could have been available to him. It has been portrayed that the creation story, including Adam and Eve, the flood and Jesus' life and resurrection are all 'borrowed' from paganism by those seeking to discredit the Bible and Christianity. What alarms me is that Christians are walking down the same road and buying into the same mis truths. The pagan myths are so similar because the have warped the central truth and incorporated it into their beliefs, the fact that they are so similar does not discredit the Pentateuch, I think it just goes to show that without divine guidance through Gods chosen and the Divine influence over Moses when penning them, the absolute truth was twisted, turned and misrepresented much like a very long long line of Chinese whispers. But the core truth was never lost, we have it, it's the bible, the inspired word of God from start to finish. If we allow ourselves to question the authenticity of Genesis, believing that it is not inspired by God but merely 'borrowed' from paganism we are discrediting the beginning chapter of our inspired word. Would you read a book by an author who claimed to be the writer, took credit for it, then it was found out that they didn't really write all of it, not even the start. The writer and the book would lose credibility. A bit like when everyone found out milli vanilli weren't singing their lyrics!
The same people and/or groups who have pushed this idea , have not just stuck to creation or the flood but apply the same principle to Jesus. So if Christians support the idea that Genesis is borrowed from paganism then we are giving credit to a viewpoint that seeks to do the same with the New Testament, our entire belief system, Christianity is under attack by those seeking to say that Christianity in its entirety is copied and borrowed from Pagan myths. It was started by Pagan religions and has spread to the general public now sadly to Christians. This is not by accident. I think it is more than a different perspective, I think it's dangerous and we need to hold tight and true to our faith and divinely inspired word.

The "open to other ideas" is taken as a clear sign that you are not given to or suffering from "dogmatosis". (just thought of that word)

Anyway, as I took a number of semesters of geology, and am consequently an expert of some renown, I'd have to say that a literal world wide flood, all but pairs of selected animals on a boat etc, just simply did not happen.

From my pov, that makes some of the discussion as to what the bible says kind of moot.

Understand, svp, that I see the bible as a deep, perhaps bottomless font of wisdom, and have no illusions that I could, nor desire to try to blow it up.

Seen as a scientific theory, the "WWF" is readily disproved.

The Bible is not a scientific theory, and unless God were to show up and somewhat paradoxically say there is no god, then, I dont suppose anything could "disprove" it.
Some readings can be shown to be wrong by science, is about it.

Whether it matters if a person believes in a WWF anyway, is not my deal. In "theory', if there is such as the God of the Bible, he might disapprove people telling tales of deeds He did not perform.

How does this seem to you?

Audie wrote:

melanie wrote:Jac I'm not trying to fit it into my preconceived worldview, as I stated I have always held to a worldwide flood and merely presented it as a possibility. I opened myself up to the possibility of another point of view that I have previously rejected as I take scripture in a more literal sense. I agree that it must be taken in context and that is why I have always understood the flood to be exactly what it states, worldwide. I still believe that to be so, but I like to ponder on differing ideas.
My concern is the same as yours. We have the divinely inspired word of God, from the first page to the last. When we start to believe in Gods creative process through evolution, that Adam and Eve were not literal and the flood did not occur in the way it is illustrated then when exactly does absolute truth kick in? When do we start interpreting the bible as literal? I personally start from page 1.
I do not believe that the Christian creation story is influenced by pagan creation myths, I believe it is the other way around. I have read that the evidence found to prove Christianity borrowed from paganism and that the pagan cuneiform inscriptions containing these myths are older than the origins of Genesis. The story of creation would have been passed down orally before Moses wrote the book of Genesis and other written sources could have been available to him. It has been portrayed that the creation story, including Adam and Eve, the flood and Jesus' life and resurrection are all 'borrowed' from paganism by those seeking to discredit the Bible and Christianity. What alarms me is that Christians are walking down the same road and buying into the same mis truths. The pagan myths are so similar because the have warped the central truth and incorporated it into their beliefs, the fact that they are so similar does not discredit the Pentateuch, I think it just goes to show that without divine guidance through Gods chosen and the Divine influence over Moses when penning them, the absolute truth was twisted, turned and misrepresented much like a very long long line of Chinese whispers. But the core truth was never lost, we have it, it's the bible, the inspired word of God from start to finish. If we allow ourselves to question the authenticity of Genesis, believing that it is not inspired by God but merely 'borrowed' from paganism we are discrediting the beginning chapter of our inspired word. Would you read a book by an author who claimed to be the writer, took credit for it, then it was found out that they didn't really write all of it, not even the start. The writer and the book would lose credibility. A bit like when everyone found out milli vanilli weren't singing their lyrics!
The same people and/or groups who have pushed this idea , have not just stuck to creation or the flood but apply the same principle to Jesus. So if Christians support the idea that Genesis is borrowed from paganism then we are giving credit to a viewpoint that seeks to do the same with the New Testament, our entire belief system, Christianity is under attack by those seeking to say that Christianity in its entirety is copied and borrowed from Pagan myths. It was started by Pagan religions and has spread to the general public now sadly to Christians. This is not by accident. I think it is more than a different perspective, I think it's dangerous and we need to hold tight and true to our faith and divinely inspired word.

The "open to other ideas" is taken as a clear sign that you are not given to or suffering from "dogmatosis". (just thought of that word)

Anyway, as I took a number of semesters of geology, and am consequently an expert of some renown, I'd have to say that a literal world wide flood, all but pairs of selected animals on a boat etc, just simply did not happen.

From my pov, that makes some of the discussion as to what the bible says kind of moot.

Understand, svp, that I see the bible as a deep, perhaps bottomless font of wisdom, and have no illusions that I could, nor desire to try to blow it up.

Seen as a scientific theory, the "WWF" is readily disproved.

The Bible is not a scientific theory, and unless God were to show up and somewhat paradoxically say there is no god, then, I dont suppose anything could "disprove" it.
Some readings can be shown to be wrong by science, is about it.

Whether it matters if a person believes in a WWF anyway, is not my deal. In "theory', if there is such as the God of the Bible, he might disapprove people telling tales of deeds He did not perform.

How does this seem to you?

Seems good to me.

Though I'd quality "world" as meaning "Global" since it could also mean "inhabitants" i.e., the "world at that time" (cf. 2 Peter 3:5-6).
Only because I like to be perfectionist.

Really, I find the reasoning presented at: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html hard to push back on.
Not that any YEC will find that convincing, just like they find the science unconvincing.

You know, some irony as I see it is that for Noah to have bought on the ark species of every kind globally as YECs believe, such would have required extremely fast evolutionary rates to obtain the diversity of animals that we see today. Fancy that YECs do believe in evolution after all.

I've seen the "hyperevolution" of created kinds seriously proposed. But then, I've also seen it proposed with equal, ah, fervor, that the excess water was wafted to Neptune where it shines to this day as a warning beacon against incoming rogue angels.

Q: Would those angels be in an upright pose, as one sees angels in paintings, or would they bore in like Superman?

Although I believe in a world wide flood that happened in this world - Noah's flood I know it did not destroy this world or cause it to perish because God spared it so that Jesus could be born to save us but also the flood that happened when Lucifer rebelled and the former world was destroyed and perished there are big differences between the former flood and Noah's flood according to the bible.Even if science rejects Noah's flood and overlooks it they do not over look or reject a world wide flood millions of years ago. Also crystal formation is evidence for a world wide flood and I have already shown that there is enough water on and inside this earth for there to have been a world wide flood as it is not so unbelievable like atheists think especially when they cannot prove or demonstrate life evolves. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 140712.htm.

It matters how we interpret the discoveries science has made and they actually have evidence that can fit into the Gap theory and even Noah's flood but they are looking at the evidence from an evolution perspective.Scientists are interpreting the evidence from this perspective while ignoring the bible as science is not out to prove the bible true so it is up to us to understand the bible,show the evidence and explain how it proves the bible true.It matters how we interpret the evidence in the earth and we can do it biblically or evolutionally.