Evidence for God from Science

Thank you for the post, dayage. But when you look at Zechariah 14 don't you see the language indicators I was talking about? The problem in Exodus 20 isn't having "long" and "short" yoms in the same sentence or verse. But what part of language is used to determine between the two?

You've done an excellent job of showing that the phrases "in that day" and "in the day of the LORD" are referring to a longer period of time in Zechariah 14. But when I look at verse 7, I see the author using parts of speech that tell me which "yom" is long and which one is short. When it's long he uses the commonly known phrase, "In the day of the LORD." When he's talking using "yom" in the short sense (here it appears he's using "day" in reference to daylight or the 12-hour meaning) he contrasts it with night. Just like I might say, "Back in my day we used to play football all day until it got dark." Even though I've used two different meanings of "day" in the same sentence it makes complete sense to you because the syntax reveals my intended meaning for the words. Again, I simply don't see anything in Exodus 20:11 that lets the readers or hearers know that the usage is changing. I'm not saying it isn't there; I'm just not not seeing or recognizing it.

Hey Mark,

You've done an excellent job of showing that the phrases "in that day" and "in the day of the LORD" are referring to a longer period of time in Zechariah 14. But when I look at verse 7, I see the author using parts of speech that tell me which "yom" is long and which one is short. When it's long he uses the commonly known phrase, "In the day of the LORD." When he's talking using "yom" in the short sense (here it appears he's using "day" in reference to daylight or the 12-hour meaning) he contrasts it with night. Just like I might say, "Back in my day we used to play football all day until it got dark." Even though I've used two different meanings of "day" in the same sentence it makes complete sense to you because the syntax reveals my intended meaning for the words.

This is a common arguement that young-earthers like to use, but it will not work here. That argument is for the use of beyom which has no article. In verses 4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 20, 21 it uses the phrase bayom. The "a" stands for the article ha. Earlier I gave you a good example of the use of bayom vs. beyom in Numbers 7:10-84. In fact there are no indicators, in relation to the use of yom, in this text that would lead one to expect this to be a long period of time. That is why context is so important.

As far as "the day of the LORD," it is not used here. Throughout the O.T. that phrase looks like this yom Yahweh "day LORD." In Zech. 14:1 it says yom ba la Yahweh "a day is coming for the LORD."

Again, I simply don't see anything in Exodus 20:11 that lets the readers or hearers know that the usage is changing. I'm not saying it isn't there; I'm just not not seeing or recognizing it.

It does not need to indicate that. It is giving a 6-1 pattern, using yom.

Again, in Exodus 31:15-17 we find the same pattern as Exodus 20:9-11, but it adds something to God that indicates that we should not take the analogy to concretely. It says in verse 17, speaking of God, "He ceased and was refreshed." But wait, God does not get tired Isaiah 40:28. I'll have to put the rest below, my window is acting up.

Now, if we are to be too literal we have God getting tired, because this is what refreshed means for man.
Exodus 23:12
Six days you are to do your work, but on the seventh day you shall cease from labor in order that your ox and your donkey may
rest, and the son of your female slave, as well as your stranger, may refresh themselves.

2 Samuel 16:14
And the king and all the people who were with him arrived weary and he refreshed himself there.

In all three places it uses the word naphash "refresh."

dayage,

Before I begin, please know that I am not deliberately trying to be difficult or obtuse. However, your arguments just don't ring true for me.

First of all, I never quite understood where you were going with the Numbers 7:10-84 reference. I think I was able to follow your logic well enough to understand how that particular passage is supposed to be interpreted, but I'm not sure how it relates to Exodus 20:11. Perhaps you can clear that up for me.

Secondly, I feel like I keep hitting the same wall with OEC's when it comes to this issue. I keep hearing, "It's a 6 to 1 pattern." as if that in itself is supposed to explain that it's an analogy. I want someone to explain the premise to me. How does A lead to B in this situation?

Thirdly, the "He was 'refreshed' but not 'tired'" argument doesn't hold much water in my opinion. 1.) I don't think one necessarily has to take the 6 to 1 pattern as an analogy in order to understand that God resting or being refreshed does not mean He gets tired. 2.) It appears that the word refreshed is not used in Exodus 20:11. If this word is so crucial to understanding the analogy, why is not used in both Exodus 20 and 31?

Again, I apologize if I sound argumentative. I'm just trying to adhere to sound principles of logic and interpretation.

-Mark

P.S. Bart, if you're reading, I would still really like to check out any sources you might have which support many of the church fathers believed in long creation "days." Thanks.

MarkR,

I'm sorry I was slow in responding.

Here's a thread where we discussed some of this a while back about the Patristics earlier on.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... rch+Father

bart

Mark,

First of all, I never quite understood where you were going with the Numbers 7:10-84 reference. I think I was able to follow your logic well enough to understand how that particular passage is supposed to be interpreted, but I'm not sure how it relates to Exodus 20:11. Perhaps you can clear that up for me.

Above, I was specifically refering to your statement about Zechariah 14 "In That day." That phrase has the article (bayom), unlike "in the day" (beyom), so would normally be understood as refering to a normal day. I also, used it earlier to show the importance of looking for the definite article on both the number and the yom, to determine whether or not we should assume the Gen. one days to be normal ones. Normal days and any other list of objects should say. THE day THE first; THE day THE second; ect. Even in Genesis one, the sixth day says "a day THE sixth." Genesis 2:3 says "a day THE seventh." The article is probably on the numbers here to indicate that these are back to back, with no period of gap. The other days could have had gaps in between them. Also, the article may be included, because these were days that we humans actually experience. The articl is still missing from the yom.

Secondly, I feel like I keep hitting the same wall with OEC's when it comes to this issue. I keep hearing, "It's a 6 to 1 pattern." as if that in itself is supposed to explain that it's an analogy. I want someone to explain the premise to me. How does A lead to B in this situation?

First, God's work and our work are not the same. We have to put effort into work, He just speaks. So, our work is only analogous to His.

Second, there is the fact that "In the beginning" is not included in Ex. 20:11. Days do not start until Genesis 1:3 "and God said." ALL of the days start with this phrase. This is backed by Genesis 2:3 which ends (literally) "in it He rested from all His work which God CREATED TO MAKE." Then in Ex. 20:11it says "For six days God MADE the heavens (day 2), the earth (day 3), the sea (day 3) and all that is in them (days 3, 4, 5, 6). Exodus is about what was MADE after the heavens and earth were CREATED.

Third, Hebrews four IS saying that the seventh day is not over. If you do not believe that , then refute it.

Fourth, Ex. 31 further shows that this should not be taken overly literal by adding "and was refreshed."

So, God used the only Hebrew word available to express both His work period and ours.

Mark,

When my post gets long the box stops letting me see what I am typing, so I've been chopping up my replies.

Thirdly, the "He was 'refreshed' but not 'tired'" argument doesn't hold much water in my opinion. 1.) I don't think one necessarily has to take the 6 to 1 pattern as an analogy in order to understand that God resting or being refreshed does not mean He gets tired.

They are connected in context, so I think it matters. Scholars that I have read also believe this is important. Likewise, as I posted ealier "refreshed" is used for humans in connection with the Sabbath command in Ex. 23:12. This further shows that its inclusion in Ex. 31 is drawing on an analogy.

2.) It appears that the word refreshed is not used in Exodus 20:11. If this word is so crucial to understanding the analogy, why is not used in both Exodus 20 and 31?

In Exodus 20:11 you have "the sea and all that is in them," but it is not in Ex. 31:17. I think this phrase is very important in determining what period of time Ex. 20 and 31 are talking about (see last post). The added information in both texts is very important.

Another argument for the analogy is found in Deut. 5:12-15 where the six days are analogous to the 430 yrs. of labor in Egypt and the seventh day is analogous to God's deliverance.

Again, I apologize if I sound argumentative. I'm just trying to adhere to sound principles of logic and interpretation.

That's OK. I'm sure I often sound that way.

P.S. Sometimes I am.

dayage,

Sorry again for the late reply. It's been another busy week. Anyway, while I think we might still disagree on several technical issues (i.e. How does one take Deuteronomy 5:15 to mean that the six days represent captivity in Egypt?), I've been mulling over some of your points and I've had a thought (let me know if this is what you've been trying to tell me all along): It seems to me that a possible explanation for how the Israelites would have distinguished between which kind of "days" were being used in Exodus 20 and 31 is if there was some sort of established understanding that went along the lines of, "Whenever discussing human activity, days = 12 or 24 hours, but whenever discussing God's activity, days = long/undefined period."

The only question remains, do passages such as Psalm 90, etc. provide enough of a precedent to support such a "rule" when interpreting Biblical Hebrew? At this point I'm not sure, but it certainly seems plausible. Let me know what you think.

I used to believe that God created everything through the use of evolution. And, I believed this when I was very young (age five-eleven), so it would make sense that I still believe this, as what you believe at that time almost always transfers into your later life due to chemical and biological "bonding" to your beliefs (heart hardening). However, I no longer believe in evolution, and I (to be honest) have no clue why! I suppose I just reached that conclusion naturally through reading the bible and drawing conclusions, with perhaps some help from church-members or famous christian debaters. I really do not know how I came to believe in a more literal approach to the Bible. Right now, however, I am trying to decide between young-earth and old-earth creationism, as they both seem logical. From what I have seen, YEC is a very literal, conservative approach of reading the Bible and then examining the hard evidence on the earth and relating it to the Bible's text. OEC seems to be examining the earth through strictly scientific means (as with atheistic scientists) and trying to see if a passage in the bible can be reinterpreted to fit these theories. Both have inconsistencies I think, but there is a great deal of evidence that goes to both, so I suppose we'll see!

Hey kmr, welcome!

Just a quick response to the impressions you give in terms of YEC vc OEC. They're common and in some cases reflective of how individuals look at things.

OEC is not however, starting with science and then attempting to make scripture fit. The OEC position pre-dates the reformation and renaissance. Both YEC and OEC have modified in part to the scientific context we find them in today and no dount they will continue to modify within the climate they're found, but both positions at the heart believe in a literal interpretation of scripture.

Both also believe that if God is common source of both revealed scripture and natural revelation through the creation, then these two should be reconcilable. In the current environment of science that does dictate in general the YEC is left with the challenge of providing explanations of how to reconcile science to their interpretation of Scripture and predictably the bulk of effort in that regard applies to science.

OEC is faced with being (at least in the US) in a culture where the YEC position has in some places been codified to being the only literal approach. Certainly as well, within the general culture, science is viewed beyond method and extended to philosophy to the point where it seems incumbant upon Christians to reconcile scripture to this "reality". OEC certainly does do this to some extent and many who come to OEC start from science in making that reconciliation. I'd stress however that OEC did not start in this environment and while the specifics in terms of the actual times we're dealing with were different in the far past, the roots of OEC are no less rooted in the scripture than YEC.

Right now, however, I am trying to decide between young-earth and old-earth creationism, as they both seem logical. From what I have seen, YEC is a very literal, conservative approach of reading the Bible and then examining the hard evidence on the earth and relating it to the Bible's text. OEC seems to be examining the earth through strictly scientific means (as with atheistic scientists) and trying to see if a passage in the bible can be reinterpreted to fit these theories. Both have inconsistencies I think, but there is a great deal of evidence that goes to both, so I suppose we'll see!

kmr, I encourage you to keep studying this topic if it really interests you. My studying has helped my faith grow. Do you really think that both YEC, and OEC seem logical? Most people that have given any amount of time studying this topic, would probably think that only one of the two seems logical. Both YEC and OEC use their interpretation of the Bible, and their interpretation of the scientific evidence for the age of the earth/universe to come up with what they believe. I do think that more OECs believe that atheistic scientists aren't the Anti-Christian people that the YECs believe they are. Some YECs would have no problem seeing a doctor who is atheist, but wouldn't rely on a scientist who is atheist. OECs that I have studied do not take the scientific evidence, and change their interpretation of the Bible to fit that evidence. Just my thoughts.

OEC seems to be examining the earth through strictly scientific means (as with atheistic scientists) and trying to see if a passage in the bible can be reinterpreted to fit these theories.

That is, sorry to say, an outrageous and logically fallacious statement, and one that YEC's love to make.

No Christian starts with atheism, as this statement seems to suggest, and reaches Christianity from there, or tries to fit atheistic statements into Christian doctrine. It shows a severe lack of understanding of "Old Earth" theology, and normally statements such as that are used to poison the well.

I would guard against using rhetoric such as that without having a very good understanding of what a position states.

August wrote:

OEC seems to be examining the earth through strictly scientific means (as with atheistic scientists) and trying to see if a passage in the bible can be reinterpreted to fit these theories.

That is, sorry to say, an outrageous and logically fallacious statement, and one that YEC's love to make.

No Christian starts with atheism, as this statement seems to suggest, and reaches Christianity from there, or tries to fit atheistic statements into Christian doctrine. It shows a severe lack of understanding of "Old Earth" theology, and normally statements such as that are used to poison the well.

I would guard against using rhetoric such as that without having a very good understanding of what a position states.

I agree with August here. One should know a subject well enough to defend it before attacking it. By making statements about OEC without knowing what OEC really is, it's the same as bearing false witness against a neighbor.

Conversation and impressions are welcome here and if they're not correct that's fine. That's why we're interacting so we all can understand things better. Let's stay focused on the issues and topic and not make personal evaluations where they're not needed, please.

I don't think anyone is making personal evaluations here, Bart. kmr is trying to make a decision between OEC and YEC, and if he is to make a logical and fair decision, then both positions should be evaluated on its own merit. RickD and me pointed out that the starting assumption about OEC is deeply flawed, thus hindering kmr from making a fair decision.

Goodness knows, this is a topic and decision that is tough enough without having to wade through the whole "You are a heretic because your creation position is ...".

Hopefully kmr is encouraged to explore YEC, OEC and everything in between with an open mind, and read past the rhetoric from both sides. And hopefully kmr will share the conclusions here so that we can all learn from it.