Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote: We in OEC have to guard too against becoming condescending and pedantic and we're capanble of similar errors of perspective and can be ungracious. I don't believe I'm aware of OEC factions raising to the level of seeking to push out or exclude those in the YEC camps to the degree experienced in the other direction. I'm tempted to say there are no instances, but I can't as there may be somethings I'm not aware of.

At least not calling into question the Doctrine of Salvation. That is pretty heavy...

There are many YEC who frequent this board, and I still consider them Christian.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Who has mislead people into believing creation was in literal days and within a 6,000 year time frame?

Doesn't oec believe in a literal days translation? I know not 24 hour days, but still a "literal" translation?

RickD wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Who has mislead people into believing creation was in literal days and within a 6,000 year time frame?

Doesn't oec believe in a literal days translation? I know not 24 hour days, but still a "literal" translation?

Absolutely yes. It does raise another issue though...is it translation or interpretation? And what does "literal" mean?

RickD wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Who has mislead people into believing creation was in literal days and within a 6,000 year time frame?

Doesn't oec believe in a literal days translation? I know not 24 hour days, but still a "literal" translation?

Yes. OEC believes that yom in the context of Gen 1 and 2 are literally, more than 24 hour days.

The standard for what the literal meaning of a text is, is not the consistency or rigidity of the heremeneutic you approach it with; It is what the intent of the author and the understanding of the original audience were. In that regard, you have to understand the literary form before you can come to understand the meaning.

Genesis 1 and 2 were written in a pre-scientific era and the understanding and meanings I believe, were intended to be understood literally but not in the context that some attempt to push upon it in order to make the text mean within todays scienctific era how they tend to, or want to read it.

RickD wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Who has mislead people into believing creation was in literal days and within a 6,000 year time frame?

Doesn't oec believe in a literal days translation? I know not 24 hour days, but still a "literal" translation?

Literal what? There are three literal meanings, Rick. There can be no literal interpretation of early Genesis, and anyone who tells you otherwise is being, umm, economical with the truth..,.

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Who has mislead people into believing creation was in literal days and within a 6,000 year time frame?

Doesn't oec believe in a literal days translation? I know not 24 hour days, but still a "literal" translation?

Literal what? There are three literal meanings, Rick. There can be no literal interpretation of early Genesis, and anyone who tells you otherwise is being, umm, economical with the truth..,.

I would disagree with that, with a qualification that we need to know what the term "literal" is assumed to mean in hermeneutics.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

RickD wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Who has mislead people into believing creation was in literal days and within a 6,000 year time frame?

Doesn't oec believe in a literal days translation? I know not 24 hour days, but still a "literal" translation?

Yes. OEC believes that yom in the context of Gen 1 and 2 are literally, more than 24 hour days.

The standard for what the literal meaning of a text is, is not the consistency or rigidity of the heremeneutic you approach it with; It is what the intent of the author and the understanding of the original audience were. In that regard, you have to understand the literary form before you can come to understand the meaning.

Genesis 1 and 2 were written in a pre-scientific era and the understanding and meanings I believe, were intended to be understood literally but not in the context that some attempt to push upon it in order to make the text mean within todays scienctific era how they tend to, or want to read it.

True, but there are also a OEC positions that accept 24-hours days as well as an old age of the earth.

As I understand it. Yom can literally mean a long, finite period of time. So, with that, how can anyone say that "day" in Genesis absolutely cannot mean anything other than a 24 hour day?

August wrote:

RickD wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Who has mislead people into believing creation was in literal days and within a 6,000 year time frame?

Doesn't oec believe in a literal days translation? I know not 24 hour days, but still a "literal" translation?

Absolutely yes. It does raise another issue though...is it translation or interpretation? And what does "literal" mean?

August,

Not sure if you're with me on this, but any proclaimation of "literal" is futile in this context as "literal" means the specific, and "yom" has three different "literal" interpretations...Hence the yec's utter confusion in the yom-days intertpretation

DannyM wrote:

August wrote:

RickD wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Who has mislead people into believing creation was in literal days and within a 6,000 year time frame?

Doesn't oec believe in a literal days translation? I know not 24 hour days, but still a "literal" translation?

Absolutely yes. It does raise another issue though...is it translation or interpretation? And what does "literal" mean?

August,

Not sure if you're with me on this, but any proclaimation of "literal" is futile in this context as "literal" means the specific, and "yom" has three different "literal" interpretations...Hence the yec's utter confusion in the yom-days intertpretation

Ok, gotcha.

RickD wrote:As I understand it. Yom can literally mean a long, finite period of time. So, with that, how can anyone say that "day" in Genesis absolutely cannot mean anything other than a 24 hour day?

There are various qualifiers put on it, such as that everywhere else where yom is used in conjunction with a numbered series, it always means 24 hour days. The most common example is a cross reference to the Sabbath commandment in Exodus, where we are instructed to rest one day out of seven, just as God did in creation.

August wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:

RickD wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Who has mislead people into believing creation was in literal days and within a 6,000 year time frame?

Doesn't oec believe in a literal days translation? I know not 24 hour days, but still a "literal" translation?

Yes. OEC believes that yom in the context of Gen 1 and 2 are literally, more than 24 hour days.

The standard for what the literal meaning of a text is, is not the consistency or rigidity of the heremeneutic you approach it with; It is what the intent of the author and the understanding of the original audience were. In that regard, you have to understand the literary form before you can come to understand the meaning.

Genesis 1 and 2 were written in a pre-scientific era and the understanding and meanings I believe, were intended to be understood literally but not in the context that some attempt to push upon it in order to make the text mean within todays scienctific era how they tend to, or want to read it.

True, but there are also a OEC positions that accept 24-hours days as well as an old age of the earth.

Good clarification. That is true. I haven't seen many gap theory proponents in a while but I imagine they're still out there.

Canuckster1127 wrote:
Good clarification. That is true. I haven't seen many gap theory proponents in a while but I imagine they're still out there.

Not just gap-theory, but also the perspective theory of Schroeder, for example.

RickD wrote:As I understand it. Yom can literally mean a long, finite period of time. So, with that, how can anyone say that "day" in Genesis absolutely cannot mean anything other than a 24 hour day?

Ricky,

1. Yom = one 12 hour period

2. Yom = one 24 hour period

3. Yom = one period of time ... e'g. In the day of the Romans.

Do your picking, brother, but this is the context in which you must deal.

August wrote:Not just gap-theory, but also the perspective theory of Schroeder, for example.

John can you expound on Schroeder a bit?