Evidence for God from Science

abelcainsbrother wrote:Jac brought up asah of day 4 which sticks out to me.I see bara and asah when I read Genesis.But I'm wondering how Jac interprets Genesis 2:4 with both bara and asah in it.What is the difference?

There is no difference. The words are synonyms.

Jac3510 wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:Jac brought up asah of day 4 which sticks out to me.I see bara and asah when I read Genesis.But I'm wondering how Jac interprets Genesis 2:4 with both bara and asah in it.What is the difference?

There is no difference. The words are synonyms.

I had a feeling you were going to say that.Explain how there is no difference,they are two different words,if they mean the same thing,then why not just use bara the whole time? Or asah? I don't understand how you can say they mean the same thing.We can look up the words and see what they mean.I'm not trying to offend just trying to understand why scholars think there is no difference.

I'm having technical difficulties by the way,my good tablet cannot be charged up and is dead and this tablet is cracked and locks up when you least expect it and you lose everything saved in it,so it is pointless to save apps or book marks,etc.I've got a new one coming though.

Synonyms don't have a perfect overlap of semantic domain. They just has significant overlap, and that's the case with bara and asah. We really don't have to make this about Hebrew grammar. The English translations of create and make do very nicely here. In English, you can see that create and make have very similar ranges of meaning.

I created a monster (so said Slim Shady! )
I made a monster
You created a fine work of art
You made a fine work of art
She created the situation
She made the situation

And so on.

Now there are situations where "create" would be appropriate that "made" would not be, or at least might not be. Again, the words don't have precise overlap. Same with our Hebrew words. You could imagine a venn diagram where the circles are almost completely overlapping and you would have a good visual of the relationship between these words.

As an aside, I would encourage you not to imagine that words have unique meanings, as if this word means this and that word means that and that all words therefore are distinct and mutually exclusive in meaning. That's a terrible misunderstanding of the nature of words, meaning, definition, reference, etc. You would do much better imagining words having a field of possible meanings. They also have a field of connotations and a field of denotations. Then beyond all that, there are words that have special meanings with reference only to particular subjects. It all gets very complicated. You don't think about it because you do it automatically. But the field of linguistics--and semantics in particular--is exactly what all of this is about.

So all you really need to know is that bara/create and asah/make have some distinctions but overall are nearly perfectly synonymous. And it is clear enough to me that Moses is using the words interchangeably. Gen 2:4 is just one simple proof text. To take only one example, Gen 1:16 says God made (asah) the sun. But Ps 148:5 says God created (bara) the sun. I could show the same thing with reference to man, sea creatures, and many other examples. If you want to know the difference, why Moses would use both words, I would say just look at the English. Again, it's close enough to the Hebrew. God created man. True. He brought man into existence. He made/fashioned man. True. He formed him. You might assume the word requires preexisting material, but that's not the case at all. God can make or fashion something out of nothing. That's just what He does. The difference isn't in whether or not there is preexisting material, but in the emphasis. Creation emphasizes the thing's relationship to God: He is the cause, the thing is the effect. Making is a more general term with no special emphasis. Any emphasis you see is in the context, not the word itself.

If you want to get a good grasp on semantics, I would strongly encourage you to read Moises Silva's The Meaning of Biblical Words. I think you'll find it quite enlightening.

edit:

And sorry to hear about the tablet. I know that sucks. Not fun at all.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

RickD wrote:

abelcainsbrother wrote:All good points to consider but it seems to me that if we go by the HGM then we must ignore Genesis 1:1 because when it says " In the beginning God created the heavens and earth,it means to me that heavens includes everything in our universe the planets,Stars,sun,moon,etc but for some reason this is ignored.This would also mean when it was created in the bbeginninng the earth was spinning in its orbit too.

Going by the HGM seems to force a person to be a young earth creationist and ignore other parts of the bible,it makes Genesis 1 trump everything other parts of the bible say,like Job 38:4-7,etc.

Umm...no.

Maybe I've misunderstood the HGM then.I will review a little and see if I've misunderstood itbut it seems like it right now and from what I know most scholars are YEC.I still try to consider YEC but I can't for now because of what I now know.I've not seen or heard good enough reasons biblically to accept it again but I still accept all who are Christian even if I disagree with them.1st Corinthians 13:12

Yes, you've misunderstood the HGM.
It was endorsed and promoted by the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy.
And Evangelical scholars who formed that council of many positions, and YEC was a minority I believe.
While the age of the Earth wasn't considered an issue, none believed Scripture supported evolution.

Jac3510 wrote:Synonyms don't have a perfect overlap of semantic domain. They just has significant overlap, and that's the case with bara and asah. We really don't have to make this about Hebrew grammar. The English translations of create and make do very nicely here. In English, you can see that create and make have very similar ranges of meaning.

I created a monster (so said Slim Shady! )
I made a monster
You created a fine work of art
You made a fine work of art
She created the situation
She made the situation

And so on.

Now there are situations where "create" would be appropriate that "made" would not be, or at least might not be. Again, the words don't have precise overlap. Same with our Hebrew words. You could imagine a venn diagram where the circles are almost completely overlapping and you would have a good visual of the relationship between these words.

As an aside, I would encourage you not to imagine that words have unique meanings, as if this word means this and that word means that and that all words therefore are distinct and mutually exclusive in meaning. That's a terrible misunderstanding of the nature of words, meaning, definition, reference, etc. You would do much better imagining words having a field of possible meanings. They also have a field of connotations and a field of denotations. Then beyond all that, there are words that have special meanings with reference only to particular subjects. It all gets very complicated. You don't think about it because you do it automatically. But the field of linguistics--and semantics in particular--is exactly what all of this is about.

So all you really need to know is that bara/create and asah/make have some distinctions but overall are nearly perfectly synonymous. And it is clear enough to me that Moses is using the words interchangeably. Gen 2:4 is just one simple proof text. To take only one example, Gen 1:16 says God made (asah) the sun. But Ps 148:5 says God created (bara) the sun. I could show the same thing with reference to man, sea creatures, and many other examples. If you want to know the difference, why Moses would use both words, I would say just look at the English. Again, it's close enough to the Hebrew. God created man. True. He brought man into existence. He made/fashioned man. True. He formed him. You might assume the word requires preexisting material, but that's not the case at all. God can make or fashion something out of nothing. That's just what He does. The difference isn't in whether or not there is preexisting material, but in the emphasis. Creation emphasizes the thing's relationship to God: He is the cause, the thing is the effect. Making is a more general term with no special emphasis. Any emphasis you see is in the context, not the word itself.

If you want to get a good grasp on semantics, I would strongly encourage you to read Moises Silva's The Meaning of Biblical Words. I think you'll find it quite enlightening.

edit:

And sorry to hear about the tablet. I know that sucks. Not fun at all.

I see your point but I'd like to point out it is not a contradiction in Genesis 1:16 and psalm 145:5 if we have understanding because I already believe God created the sun in the beginning and yet made it later.God created the sun but made it later,he did both.So I don't think it is a contradiction.I believe God created the sun in the beginning,whenever that was then he made the sun on day 4. So I don't see how they can say they mean the something based on Genesis 1:1,Psalm 145:5, And Genesis 1:16.It makes me thing Ken Ham is paying somebody or something.

We may not agree but I see no contradiction and do not believe they mean the samething,but thanks for explaining it so well.
I actually believe that God turned the sun off until day 4 when he worked on it and turned it back on,and we know aging stars produce water,so if God turned the stars off until day 4 then this would flood the universe with water which is what we see in 2nd Peter 3:5-7 inwhich the cosmos,not just the earth was flooded,but both including the water that used to be on Mars,but is now gone and the earth was flooded too in Genesis 1:2 with no light at all.

Jac3510 wrote:K, I think our fundamental difference is here:

There's just no getting around it what is meant by an ordinary day -- morning to evening and evening to morning.
If it's just shining an alternative light source, well the fish in my fish tank have experienced two mornings and evenings today for I switched the fish tank light on and off twice. But, seriously now, who really would believe that?

I tried to explain this in some detail in my first reply in the thread. I think (following the HGM) that you are unnecessary (and incorrectly) assuming that there has to be a source of light.

Now, stay with me. I know that it's mindbending to imagine light not having a source. I think even AiG is wrong here, because they seem to think in terms of some alternate light source. They seem to think that there was another light source and that when God made the sun He then made it the source.

But all that's wrong.

Ok, let me go back and deal with some of the substance in your first reply.
I avoided responding directly and provided a generalised response as there were many unnecessary and intense words I felt.
Not that I'm shy to get a bit more gloves off, but then you had some back and forwards with RickD which seemed to escalate, and I didn't really want to point to be lost through escalating what can such a touchy topic for us.

I'm not out to try and rub some salt into a weakness I do see with a particular YEC position, but I do nonetheless see a strict HG weakness in a young Earth interpretation which says:

1) Has the Sun being created on Day 4, and
2) An alternative light source (which AIG do accept, but you here reject)

Re: point 2, at least you see merit to my argument evidenced by the fact you dislike AiG pressing an interpretation with the need to have an alternative light source for no other reason than to to mimic an "ordinary day" . So then, it whatever you previously scoffed over, doesn't really seem so silly after all since we've seen a weakness with AiG's interpretation. Right?

So soon, I'll respectfully go back to your first reply to respond to what you say on an "ordinary day" regarding light.
Then, I'll move onto your last reply to me at a later time.

Abel, I'm not suggesting there is a contradiction. I'm making a more serious point. Ps 148:5 says the sun was created--bara. Gen 1:16 says the sun was made--asah. I'm not interested in some harmonization where you can try to preserve a distinction between the words. I've never claimed that the words are perfect synonyms. In fact I explicitly said the opposite. I said there was no difference in the meaning of the words in Gen 2:4. You asked how. I said because they have overlapping semantic ranges. Ps 148:5 demonstrates that. Again, you are free to try to claim words are being used in a technical sense in any given passage. There are rules for how you do that. I don't think you give them any thought, and I think you do so to your own detriment. Whenever you claim a word has a technical meaning, your position is immediately and necessarily weakened, if for no other reason than the fact that you have to give textual justification for your claim. That's just another reason, one of a great many, why I reject your interpretation of Gen 1 as unwarranted. But all of that is totally beside the point. I really hope that you can try to see the point I am making rather than reactively defending your own view. The only point I'm making is that bara and asah are synonyms in that they have a largely overlap semantic range, and Gen 2:4, they each bear a common meaning.

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

K, I agree with you that AiG's interpetation of the nature of the days with reference to the sun is, plainly, ridiculous. I find it nearly offensive because they are the foremost representatives of YEC and are always talking about the importance of taking the text on it own terms and here so clearly depart from it and engage in eisogesis of their own. It ought not be allowed to pass. With all due respect, I don't think that your argument is the one to apply, though. Even if you want to posit some supernatural source of light where the sun would be--to serve a placeholder of sorts--you don't get "supernatural" days and therefore not "ordinary" days. And even if you just wanted to insist on that, that still wouldn't effect their overall interpretation, because the first three "supernatural" days are of exactly the same quality and duration of as the latter three "ordinary" days. The whole approach you've taken strikes me as the epitome of picking the nit and being terribly uncharitable. Perhaps its the programmer in you trying to see the text of Genesis 1 as coding, but that's not the way language works. I wish I could put exactly into words whatever it is I'm picking up on, but I can't. I'm just trying to tell you, and this is where some of my admitted emotional response comes from (which I don't think, btw, is a necessarily bad thing--emotional responses, I mean . . . perhaps a conversation for another thread?). What you're attempting to do feels too much like a game. It feels like something a lawyer would say who is less interested in truth than he is in getting his client off on a technicality. Everyone sees what the real issue is, but now we're playing with the legal system rather than looking at truth.

So we can do that to the HGM. And that's unfortunate. Look, in my view, the HGM isn't a rigorous system that determines truth. It isn't a set of legal standards and precedents that must be met. It's an explanation of how human language operates. It's stated as a set of rules. But you and I both know that rules can be used for good or they can be applied in a legalistic sense such that the rules become more important than reality. And I know that what I'm saying NOW can be misinterpreted to allow people to argue YUR JUS TRYIN TO AVOYD DA NESSUSARY CONSEKWENSES UV YUR BELEEFS!!! I mock that for I hope obvious reasons. I'm more interested in truth than I am in games. All this applies to me, too. If I apply the HGM in a game-like fashion, then I need to be called out on it, too.

So press your argument if you want. I'm suggesting to you, without sufficient humility I grant, that you're going about it all the wrong way. AiG's problem isn't with some notion of "supernatural days." It's with the fact they they are reading science into the text. And it's all completely unnecessary. Genesis 1 isn't talking about the earth spinning on its axis. They've fixated on that scientific truth and are trying to harmonize it with Scripture rather than just letting Scripture be Scripture. THAT is their error, not that they don't believe in ordinary days.

And yes, btw, I acknowledge that my back and forth with Rick escalated. I shouldn't have responded any further the second time around with him. I said early on I was going to withdraw, and I should have kept to that. I regret engaging in the first place once I saw the level of discourse going in the direction it did.

Jac wrote:K, I agree with you that AiG's interpetation of the nature of the days with reference to the sun is, plainly, ridiculous. I find it nearly offensive because they are the foremost representatives of YEC and are always talking about the importance of taking the text on it own terms and here so clearly depart from it and engage in eisogesis of their own. It ought not be allowed to pass. With all due respect, I don't think that your argument is the one to apply, though. Even if you want to posit some supernatural source of light where the sun would be--to serve a placeholder of sorts--you don't get "supernatural" days and therefore not "ordinary" days. And even if you just wanted to insist on that, that still wouldn't effect their overall interpretation, because the first three "supernatural" days are of exactly the same quality and duration of as the latter three "ordinary" days. The whole approach you've taken strikes me as the epitome of picking the nit and being terribly uncharitable. Perhaps its the programmer in you trying to see the text of Genesis 1 as coding, but that's not the way language works. I wish I could put exactly into words whatever it is I'm picking up on, but I can't. I'm just trying to tell you, and this is where some of my admitted emotional response comes from (which I don't think, btw, is a necessarily bad thing--emotional responses, I mean . . . perhaps a conversation for another thread?). What you're attempting to do feels too much like a game. It feels like something a lawyer would say who is less interested in truth than he is in getting his client off on a technicality. Everyone sees what the real issue is, but now we're playing with the legal system rather than looking at truth.

So we can do that to the HGM. And that's unfortunate. Look, in my view, the HGM isn't a rigorous system that determines truth. It isn't a set of legal standards and precedents that must be met. It's an explanation of how human language operates. It's stated as a set of rules. But you and I both know that rules can be used for good or they can be applied in a legalistic sense such that the rules become more important than reality. And I know that what I'm saying NOW can be misinterpreted to allow people to argue YUR JUS TRYIN TO AVOYD DA NESSUSARY CONSEKWENSES UV YUR BELEEFS!!! I mock that for I hope obvious reasons. I'm more interested in truth than I am in games. All this applies to me, too. If I apply the HGM in a game-like fashion, then I need to be called out on it, too.

So press your argument if you want. I'm suggesting to you, without sufficient humility I grant, that you're going about it all the wrong way. AiG's problem isn't with some notion of "supernatural days." It's with the fact they they are reading science into the text. And it's all completely unnecessary. Genesis 1 isn't talking about the earth spinning on its axis. They've fixated on that scientific truth and are trying to harmonize it with Scripture rather than just letting Scripture be Scripture. THAT is their error, not that they don't believe in ordinary days.

Jac, half way through my new post I saw your last reply to me so taking time here out to respond. I'm really going to be as forthright as I can be here with my feelings. And if you still feel there is some higher game being played by me, then even my own consciousness is unaware to it.

Thankfully, in my new post I've taken time out to discuss a little what I see as important which is the level of strictness with the Historical-Grammatical approach. This in some way perhaps feeds into your feelings I'm being too technical and rigid in my application of it, like "playing a game" to catch YECs out or something. That it is more of a game to me, then truly trying to seek out understanding.

Perhaps, if I'm honest, it is always a game to a degree. I mean we've both been debating and discussing creation for how long now since we've been here? Since the beginning. It entertains us -- the dialogue. And, we're faced with arguments that try and out-game us and the positions we hold. Sometimes we're forced to retreat, admit a good point has been made, other times we're the ones making the good points.

You feel I'm being too uncharitable, too "letter by the law" like with my approach. Well, when I developed my posts in the hermeneutics thread, I realised that there are different levels of strictness with the Historical-Grammatical method of interpretation. This is what differentiates you in your application of the HGM from say many on the ICBI who also embrace it. For example, you will reject Scripture interpreting other Scripture if you feel the author did not have such intention in their words (regardless of whether or not a different meaning can be found in the Hebrew Lexicon); whereas for ICBI there is no higher authority than Scripture interpreting Scripture regardless of what we feel an author's intention is. For them, this is the Holy Spirit helping us to interpret Scripture.

So an important point I see in all this, is that there is the Historical-Grammatical Method, and then there's the level of strictness and how technical we are going to be with it. This is what my next post is going to highlight. And probably good to cover, since you are feeling this rigidness. It is perhaps a cause of confusion to many. Perhaps yourself with how you feel I'm being too technical. Certainly for ACB who sees it can only apply to a YEC interpretation. I dare say if we pushed the HGM to it's absolute threshold of 100% then no interpretation would be satisfactory because language it ultimately symbolic in nature (words can only ever represent something rather than being the literal).

You feel there is something about my approach that is being is some way mean or unfair. If I'm being too unforgiving and "legal" or "by the letter", the only thing I can think of, is that I've decided to apply the same magnifying glass that I feel YECs (you in particular) apply to the Day-Age with a very strict literal and rigid reading of Scripture.

If there is any gripe below surface I have that you can't put your finger on, then it might be whenever a YEC says that "the Day-Age interpretation is unscriptural and tares at the Gospel", or "the YEC interpretation is the only interpretation that doesn't distort Scripture" and the like -- what you are feeling is how I felt. That's quite unfair. Especially, when one only has to go as far as Gen 2:4 to see that day is being used for generations and so possibly the "figurative referent" being a period of time, which is one true referent and meaning of yom, is acceptable. Like it's some "technicality" game being played that you don't see this. BUT, now I better understand you're just applying strict HG methods, well having been criticised for so long as destroying Scripture and God's Word, being able to hold YEC accountable to the same level is well, quite... err.. enjoyable I suppose? So, I do think I can feel where you're coming from.

I guess a stricter application HGM is unforgiving in that respect. But, if it's good for the Day-Age, then why shouldn't all other interpretations be given the same level of scrutiny? I bet before this exchange, you may not have even considered AiG YEC interpretation suspect. Now you do. So it can't be claimed that the YEC position is the only legitimate position, but rather certain YEC positions. Because some still try to read science into the text just like you see Day-Agers doing. Right? According to a stricter Historical-Grammatical approach.

I'm not apologetic for that. For whether or not uncharitable, I'm being too technical, too rigid, delighting a little in applying the same rigidity and strictness of the HGM to YEC interpretations, or the like -- for the sake of good interpretations that still has to be a good thing? If anything, you helped create any monster in me here. It was you that helped me see and understand the extent and strictness of the HGM standard that you apply! So now, having Day-Age sympathies I do find it interesting examining YEC interpretations and holding them accountable to the same standard.

Jac3510 wrote:And yes, btw, I acknowledge that my back and forth with Rick escalated. I shouldn't have responded any further the second time around with him. I said early on I was going to withdraw, and I should have kept to that. I regret engaging in the first place once I saw the level of discourse going in the direction it did.

No, I think your words are truer when you say that that passion and emotion should be involved. It's a good thing.
And you know, by escalation, I can see that what was written caused you great displeasure. And I didn't want to be offended by some words so chose to read your responses but not respond (but I will eventually respond to because some positive points were made).

I'd much prefer an exchange be had, than no exchange at all. Otherwise we really don't know how far off-beat we are right?
And we may walk away disagreeing in the end, but at least we know where each other stands and why we disagree.
That's better then just having you remain silent and ignore anything being said.

Jac3510 wrote:And yes, btw, I acknowledge that my back and forth with Rick escalated. I shouldn't have responded any further the second time around with him. I said early on I was going to withdraw, and I should have kept to that. I regret engaging in the first place once I saw the level of discourse going in the direction it did.

Jac,

I realize you think the argument is foolishness. But, I'd like to hear your responses to my last post. When I've asked, you've helped me understand a lot of issues I have had. It may take me a little longer to understand some things, but I'm a reasonable person(please, no chuckling), and if something is logical, I'm usually on board with it.

I just can't help but think the YEC/OEC issue goes much deeper than just interpretation for you. When someone stops simply arguing the issue, and the discussion gets emotional, then it usually means there's another issue causing the emotions. And as you've said emotion in a discussion isn't necessarily a bad thing.

So, while I'd like to continue with the discussion because I brought up some points that I'd like addressed, I can certainly understand if it's a touchy subject for you. And I won't press you, for now, if you want to let it rest.

I want to take time out and talk further about the Historical-Grammatical Method (HGM) to try put this more in reach of the lay reader.

The Argument

The argument I presented when starting this thread challenges popular Young-Earth Creationist (YEC) interpretations that often claim to be a 100% literal interpretation of Scripture, and by that it is meant their interpretation passes the Historical-Grammatical method.

If you asked me a year ago how I'd respond to the accusation from YECs that an OEC interpretation like the Day-Age twists and distorts Scripture and isn't literal, I would have respond they're just using colourful rhetoric to claim superiority for their position. Especially since an acceptable literal referent in the Hebrew Lexicon (dictionary) for 'day' (yom) is a period of time. So I thought, how can it be distorting Scripture when that is an actual meaning for the disputed word.

To Jac's credit, he got me to see that this wasn't simply a baseless statement being made. Rather, the reason he claims that OEC interpretations distort Scripture is because in his eyes such interpretations fail to pass a particular method of interpreting Scripture. This method is what I have referred to throughout as the Historical-Grammatical method, and it has always been respected in Evangelical circles.

It's aim is to understand a text before us as the original author intended and audience of the time would have understood. There is good reason for this, because it puts a stop to anyone's interpretation being as good as any others. This also avoids the claim made by skeptics against "Bible-believing" Christians that we just spiritualise and change the meaning if we don't like something.

Is the Day-Age Interpretation Valid Historical-Grammatically?

The answer to that seriously depends upon who you ask.

Jac would probably instantly respond, "No!" Many prominent Evangelical theologians, especially those on the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy that wrote the Chicago Statements would respond, "Yes!" I myself would respond "yes", while qualifying that it also depends on the level of strictness that one applies with the Historical-Grammatical method. What do I mean by this?

Levels of Strictness with the Historical-Grammatical Method

Low-Level Strictness
Many are familiar with 1 day is as 1000 years. Some would therefore say based upon this, understanding a day in Genesis 1 as 1000 years is a justified literal interpretation. Others, actually myself included, would say "hold on a moment." That just because we have such a reference elsewhere in Scripture, doesn't mean Moses actually intended that for the Genesis creation day. We need to look within the context of an actual passage and can't just go replacing the meaning of words willy-nilly to conform to whatever we please. Right?

So, a loose application of the Historical-Grammatical method would say reading the days in Genesis as 1000 years is alright. A stricter application will say no, the context rules out being able to apply 1000 years to a day in Genesis 1. In other words, some will say such an interpretation of 1 day being 1000 years in Genesis 1 is not a literal interpretation, while others will respond it is a literal interpretation.

As for Day-Agers, they do not say that 1 day is as a 1000 years so this lends awkward support. Rather they argue that 1 day is an unspecified period of time that can represent millions of years on Earth. Quite a bit of difference there! So saying 1 day is 1000 years doesn't really work for anything more than a suggestive concept that for God time doesn't really matter.

What is needed isn't saying a day yom is 1000 years, but having a day yom actually represent a period of time.

Higher-Level Strictness

Now, there are other passages in Scripture where yom is used and does not represent an ordinary day. In fact, we don't have to look very far, but only to Genesis 2:4. Understand that chapters and verses were added after to help us refer to this or that part of Scripture, BUT Genesis 2:4 is understood by many to be the concluding verse to the previous creation accounts in Genesis 1. Opposing this view are some who say it is an introduction to Genesis 2:5+. In any case, it matters little for Genesis 2:4 reads:

• These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day ('yom') that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.
  (Side note: this is the KJV translation and the NASB is similar. The NIV hides the use of "day" in its interpretation, and is therefore less accurate. NIV I've found tends to be more friendly to the YEC position. NIV tries to take into account the words and context and then provides an overall translation of a verse. I've found that the NASB to be more accurate as a word-for-word translation. And KJV is an even more literal word-for-word translation. And The Message, well we just won't even call that Scripture. If anyone quotes from it for support, be immediately suspicious of anything they say.)

So we have here yom being referred to as a period of time covering "the generations" of the heavens of the earth during creation. So we have justification in Scripture for yom actually covering a time period of more than an ordinary day. In Genesis 2:4 there is very strong textual warrant for inferring yom being a period of time.

Now, did Moses intend that for each day (yom) in Genesis 1 to represent a period of time? Well, I think there is further warrant to say yes. Because in Genesis 2:4, it isn't just saying the heavens and earth (6 days) were created in a day, but it is say the generations of heavens and earth. This is suggestive of much time passing. There were generations of the heavens, there were generations of the earth, in how everything was created. Heck, why don't we just call them periods? Right? So could Moses possibly have had the thought of "days" in Genesis 1 as covering generations? It seems possible.

However, as YEC literalists like to point out, yom is used through Genesis 1 with an "evening and morning" refrain, and also includes an integer together with yom which YECs attach higher significance to. (e.g., "first day", "second day", etc). To which Day-Agers have what I feel are very strong responses also based upon Scripture, but I'll leave that aside here because it doesn't matter too much.

Why it doesn't matter is because YECs attach greater meaning to the immediate context of the Genesis 1 (Gen 2:4 is too out of context). So if we just read the words in the creation days, it is obviously intended that ordinary days are being used. And so, the argument is made from YECers that: "anyone who picks up the Bible and reads it for the first time will immediately think of the days as ordinary days with evening and mornings."

Granted? Perhaps. But, my response would be the Bible is a very deep book, hence we call it the Living Word of God. Sometimes, when we read something (especially common in philosophy), our first reading or even first few readings, fails to truly understand the intended thought. It may not be until reading text later on, that the penny drops and we fully grasp what a writer was trying to say. So, while a surface-level reading may lead to reading days as "ordinary days", this may not be Moses real intended deeper meaning behind his words.

So does the Day-Age pass the Historical-Grammatical method? I see that it definitely passes a much stronger Historical-Grammatical approach, but it fails YEC's very strong and unforgiving Historical-Grammatical approach to Scripture. It fails because in the immediate context, a surface-level reading would not entertain the days being long periods of time. Indeed, perhaps Jac is correct that one needs to read science in.

So while there might be Scriptural warrant to interpret yom as a period of time, this is not good enough for the highest-levels of strictness with which the Historical-Grammatical method is applied.

Highest-Level Strictness

So, Day-Age fails to meet to highest level of demands when it comes to interpreting a passage of Scripture literally, and by that I mean, Scripture cannot be pulled from other chapters and books of the Bible to gain a better understanding of Genesis 1. And most definitely not, can we draw from truths we know in science which the author of Genesis and people of the time would not have known.

BUT, so then, whether right or wrong, what does an interpretation look like which follows the highest-level of strictness of the Historical-Grammatical method? This was why I started this thread, to explore that question and I suppose to take YEC interpretations to task. If it's good to apply such levels of strictness to OEC then why not YEC?

AND, when I saw it claimed that YEC is the only sound interpretation of Scripture that accepts days in Genesis 1 as "ordinary days", knowing what I know about YEC interpretations made my jaw drop. For the most popular YEC interpretation says that the Sun isn't created until day 4. How can such claim that they accept an "ordinary day" with "evening and morning" on days 1-3?

Then, I realised they not only claim "ordinary days" are had without the Sun, but many interpretations (like Answers in Genesis) talk of a light-source mimicking the Sun to give the "ordinary" days. The days start appearing to be not so ordinary. Indeed, the days look extraordinary. Such YEC interpretations seem to start becoming far more complicated than Day-Age with what gets introduced into the immediate text.

To me, the only interpretation which appears the pass the highest-level of strictness is Theophilus' YEC position. He believes that the Sun is there in the beginning ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."). So, now he really can take days 1 through to 6 to really mean ordinary days as everyone is familiar with and understands.

The Cliff's Edge to the Historical Grammatical Method

You know, the reason I believe in Scripture is because I believe it has divine input. That the Holy Spirit moved it's authors to compile or write in such a way that God's message comes through intact. Scripture is divinely inspired. Jesus trusted it. I have faith in Jesus. So I trust it too.

Due to seeing it as divinely inspired, the highest method of interpretation for me is where Scripture elsewhere helps shed light on difficult passages. This is something that a very strict approach using Historical-Grammatical method denies, indeed even rigidly strangles to death. It will even lead a person to deny Scripture interpreting Scripture, and if indeed a contradiction was found sacrifice Scripture on the alter of the method.

I know, that sounds astounding. People who are claiming to be Scriptural and getting angry at others who distort Scripture, actually willing to sacrifice Scripture at the end of the day for their interpretation using the Historical-Grammatical approach? What on earth you are smoking Kurieuo. Nothing. Such has been said to me plainly elsewhere by a strict HG advocate.

For example, take the serpent in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:1). A very strict HG approach will say this is a literal serpent. We had a literal snake talking to Adam and Eve and tempting them to eat. That is what an immediate surface-level reading within the context tells us. Moses' intent therefore isn't that this is "the devil, or Satan" as we find in Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20:2. To identify the snake as Satan is to read theological understanding back into the text. Some even argue the snake is devoid of any spiritual representation of Satan. (you can find discussions on whether the snake was literal here [with exchanges between Jac and Gman], here and here)

Now to me, I'd be fine (based upon Revelation) with someone entirely replacing a literal snake with Satan. I believe Satan is central to our fall. Moses and the audience at the time were aware to angelic beings and as such I'm certain those demonic ones who fell. To say a literal snake is the main part of this story is I think to entirely miss the boat here. And to make it only the case this is a literal snake is worse.

This is a perfect illustration of the strictness with which some apply the Historical-Grammatical method in a way that it can even strangle out even other Scripture (the Holy Spirit) communicating true meaning. I mentioned earlier how the Historical-Grammatical method can actually sacrifice Scripture on its alter. Consider carefully Jac's words written elsewhere:

I would far more quickly revise my understanding of inerrancy/inspiration than my interpretation of Genesis 1. Geisler thinks that is too high a price to pay, but I think he is wrong. Because if the price of “inerrancy” is that we read into Scripture what it doesn’t actually say, what we have no warrant for holding, then inerrancy doesn’t exist anyway. I take it on faith that the Bible won’t contradict science or even itself. I have no more patience for theologies that reinterpret passages to fit each other to make sure there is no contradiction than I do with the day-age theory. All the same principles apply. Here’s a major point: we cannot be so afraid of contradictions that we refuse to let the Bible speak plainly!

While Jac says he believes Scripture will not contradict itself (some saving grace perhaps that he would not really sacrifice Scripture for his Genesis 1 interpretation), there does seem to be a point where the Historical-Grammatical method will evidently lead someone off the cliff. Jac is here clearly saying that he would much sooner drop "inerrancy" than his interpretation of Genesis 1.

So then, let's say Scripture contradicted Jac's interpretation arrived at via his strict application of the Historical-Grammatical method. Rather than change interpretations to something more acceptable and fitting, he would drop Scripture altogether? Hmm. As an Evangelical, I'm with Geisler on this one. That for me, is a high price indeed.

I'd much rather concede my understanding is wrong, that my interpretative framework is giving me a wrong result, then to loose trust in Scripture. Discarding Scripture is too high a price. I'd sooner drop my interpretation for one more fitting, as long as such is honestly done with some warrant so as to not "completely" delude myself. (semi-delude is fine, right? )

K, I'm in broad agreement with your two posts above (I don't see a lot of need to comment on your layman's post just above -- good summary). And I, wish you, would rather see a discussion and try to make progress than just forget things all the way around. As an aside, I do want to say that one of the reasons I enjoy talking about this and other contentious matters with you is because you do challenge me to think more deeply but, more importantly, we're allowed to have something a fully human conversation. By that, I mean that I think we allow each other the space to state not only our propositions (with the complete understanding that those propositions are exclusive in nature) but we allow each other to share our emotional reactions as well. I think we do that so much that we are forever making public disclaimers about things getting heated. Perhaps others might be uncomfortable with it. But I've always found it to be freeing, a joy even!

In any case, I'm looking forward to any further substantive remarks you have as to the view I've put forward. I will say that you are correct that I'd not noticed the foolishness of AiG with respect to this point before. I see it now and I don't think I'll be able to unsee it. Yet as I said before, it's not about "supernatural days." The error is in their reading science into the text. And I think I've been open about the fact that I think they do that in other places as well.

Finally, I would agree that the HGM ought to be just as strictly applied to YEC as I apply it to OEC. I try very hard to apply it strictly to my own understanding of the text! But my points above were never about asking for grace not to apply it strictly, but rather asking that we apply it honestly. Your application of the HGM rightly demonstrates, for instance, the absurdity of AiG's claim that God essentially created a supernatural source of sunlight as a placeholder for the sun . That is a good and fair point, and I am truly glad you brought it up! Where I fault you is when you go a step beyond and then conclude that YEC doesn't believe in ordinary days, that they believe in supernatural days. And that's no more fair than for me to say that because I think OECs don't have a proper warrant for seeing the yomim of Genesis 1 as long periods of time that therefore OECs don't really believe in ages like they claim to. That wouldn't be fair. And to try to concoct some sort of scheme and label it as "supernatural ages" would strike me--or I hope you, anyway--as more a rhetorical ploy to score debate points than an actual attempt to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the view in question.

So says I . . .

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

Rick,

Let me address some of the points you brought up. If I missed something important, let me know:

1. You claim that we can translate "God made [the sun]" as "God had made the sun." I disagree. If by "can" you mean that it is within the acceptable rules of grammar considered apart from context, then sure. But by that criteria, we can translate John 1:1 "The Word was a god." Now, if you want to talk about the translation of verbs and how that relates to this particular verse, we can. And perhaps after I make my case, you'll still disagree. But suffice it to say here that I do not think that we can translate the phrase as you suggest, and the fact that no one that I'm aware of has ever translated it that way should tell you something. Don't go ACB on me here and claim all those Hebrew scholars are wrong . . . (how is THAT for a rhetorical debate tactic! )

2. We had this little exchange:

The simple fact is that the sun comes after the creation of light. That is completely impossible to get away from. That's been my point the entire time.

And I disagree. It's not a simple fact. It's your interpretation. The sun existed on the first day. The sun is the source of light.

I overstated my case. What I should have said is that the simple fact is that the text depicts the sun coming into existence after the creation of light. THAT is what you can't get away from. And to demonstrate that is what was in my mind, look at my language later in the same post:

• That which does not exist cannot produce that which does exist;
  Evening/morning is depicted as existing before the sun, which is to say, evening/morning are depicted as having existed at one point in which the sun did not)
  Therefore, the evening/morning cycle is not produced by the sun;
  Side note: so produces the evening/morning cycle? Answer: the light, created on day 1

Now, if you are going to argue that even though light is depicted as coming first and the sun depicted as coming later that, despite the actual language of the text, that the text really wants us to understand that the sun was already in existence, then fine. You can make that argument. But, of course, you have to make that argument from the text. You don't get to appeal to things like the rotation of the earth to do it. And just offering a conclusion--a counter reading of the text--by claiming that we can interpret the fourth day to teach that "[the sun] just became visible" isn't sufficient. I don't need an interpretation. I need warrant for that interpretation.

3. Then you said:

You are the one practicing eisogesis, by saying that there was light other than the sun which existed on day 1. The text does not say that the light was something other than the sun. You just assume it was, because you wrongly believe the sun didn't exist until the 4th day.

And this I just disagree with you on, and very strongly. The text says there was light. Three days later, the text says there was the sun. It is not eisogesis to say that if there is no sun, then it cannot produce the light. Nor is it eisogesis to say that the light was there without the sun, because that is exactly what the text depicts.

Light first.
Sun later.

4. Then you said:

I can say that ordinary days didn't exist if there was no sun, for the same reason we can't use the earth spinning on its axis as an argument.

You've contradicted yourself here. The second part is right. We cannot talk about the earth spinning on its axis. As you point out, that's modern science. Moses wouldn't have known about it. In just the same way, you canNOT say "that ordinary days didn't exist if there was no sun." That statement assumes that the sun defines the day based on the rotation of the earth. And what I am telling you--and if you respond to nothing else, please just respond to this--is that the definition of a morning/evening is the presence or absense of the light. Look at these two statements side by side:

• The definition of a morning/evening is the presence or absense of the light
  The definition of a morning/evening is the rising or setting of the sun

Now, MODERN SCIENCE tells us, due to the rotation of the earth, that these sentences mean the same thing. But exclude modern science. Imagine a world in which light exists apart from the sun, that the sun is certainly a light giving body such that when it is there, night is not, but that it comes with the light, governing and marking it--it does not determine the light. That shouldn't be a hard picture to imagine. Maybe it is easy for me because I have a five year old daughter. She thinks the sun wakes up first thing in the morning. Do you see that? Morning comes. It starts to get light outside. And the sun comes up! The, then sun gets tired. It starts to get dark. And that tells the sun that it is bedtime.

Do you see that difference? If so, you should be able to see that those two statements are NOT the same thing.

5. Finally, you want to talk about the meaning of boqer and ereb. I grant that part of their meaning is "sunrise" and "sunset" respectively, that is, that those ideas are within those words' semantic range. But that is not the same thing as saying that evening (ereb) means a sunset. What it means is just that: the evening. You can, of course, use the word to refer to the sunset, to the time of the day in which the sun sets. But there is no 1:1 correspondence there. That's just not how definitions work.

Given all that, I won't retract my claim of dishonesty. I'm not, in that, leveling a charge of malice, because I'm not sure tha the dishonesty is intentional. Moses would certainly know an ordinary day if the sun didn't exist. He'd look for an evening/morning cycle based on the light that God created on day 1. To claim that Moses couldn't know such because the light necessarily presumes the sun is correct scientifically, but we aren't reading science into the text. So the argument is dishonest because it claims not to rely on science but then smuggles it in through the backdoor.

Abel, I'm not suggesting there is a contradiction. I'm making a more serious point. Ps 148:5 says the sun was created--bara. Gen 1:16 says the sun was made--asah. I'm not interested in some harmonization where you can try to preserve a distinction between the words. I've never claimed that the words are perfect synonyms. In fact I explicitly said the opposite. I said there was no difference in the meaning of the words in Gen 2:4. You asked how. I said because they have overlapping semantic ranges. Ps 148:5 demonstrates that. Again, you are free to try to claim words are being used in a technical sense in any given passage. There are rules for how you do that. I don't think you give them any thought, and I think you do so to your own detriment. Whenever you claim a word has a technical meaning, your position is immediately and necessarily weakened, if for no other reason than the fact that you have to give textual justification for your claim. That's just another reason, one of a great many, why I reject your interpretation of Gen 1 as unwarranted. But all of that is totally beside the point. I really hope that you can try to see the point I am making rather than reactively defending your own view. The only point I'm making is that bara and asah are synonyms in that they have a largely overlap semantic range, and Gen 2:4, they each bear a common meaning.

Jac,I'm not trying to be disrespectful but you said there is no difference between bara and asah and this is why I think there is disagreement.Now,I admit they are similar but I think you are wrong to believe there is no difference.

Here is why,Let's use Genesis 1:1 again.It uses the word bara when it says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Now if I asked you did God create the heavens and earth out of nothing? You would say yes based on John chapter 1 and yet eeverytime we see the word as ah or made God is building or working on something out of already existing materials orr things he had already created. And this is the difference in the words bars and as ah that I think must not be overlooked. This is not reading anything into the text or anything it is what we notice when we see the words bara and asah

Now keeping with this distinction we see the distinction in Genesis 2:4 where God both creates the heavens and earth but also made them too,and so the same thing applies to the earth,sun,moon,stars,etc like I said earlier.

I cannot control how you define bara and asah but yes if you believe three is no difference like you said above then you will read it like you do,but not if you notice the distinction as you read whenever the words bara and asah are used.

I think this is the real key and will greatly effect how we read Genesis.

Thanks for your explanation,you explain things so well.