Old Earth Problems?

[August]

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

John can you expound on Schroeder a bit?

Sure, will start a new thread.

[RickD]

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.

I completely agree. Well almost completely. Can't yom also mean the period of daylight in a day? I guess I'm asking how anyone can be so dogmatic as to believe that anyone that believes differently on the meaning of yom is wrong.

[Canuckster1127]

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.

I completely agree. Well almost completely. Can't yom also mean the period of daylight in a day? I guess I'm asking how anyone can be so dogmatic as to believe that anyone that believes differently on the meaning of yom is wrong.

That's roughly what position 1 is referring to.

[DannyM]

I completely agree. Well almost completely. Can't yom also mean the period of daylight in a day? I guess I'm asking how anyone can be so dogmatic as to believe that anyone that believes differently on the meaning of yom is wrong.

Rick, I believe Canuckster1127 is correct in pointing you to #1.

As to your concern about dogmatism on the YE side, I too am concerned with this. I'm used to, and can deal with, dogmatic atheism, but to see fellow Christians so dogmatic and arrogant is a little worrying to say the least. For me, it doesn't smack of confidence; it, actually, smacks of a *lack of* confidence and a desperation to ram home a floundering view.

To qualify: I know a couple of yec's who are among the most loving, compassionate and tolerant I have ever known, and would certainly never in a million years question my salvation. I'm just sad that these wonderful human beings are, in my experience, in a minority regards their world viewpoint.

[erawdrah]

What's the harm in an allegorical interpretation of Genesis? What is the harm in believing that hominid's were before Adam? Soulless beings roaming the earth before Adam and Eve? Who was Cain's wife? a hominid? What is the offspring from a human and hominid relationship? Can you bred a soul into a line of hominids? So according to Dr. Ross, there were soulless humans before Adam. Did they die out or inter-breed with humans?
Read this answer on Dr. Ross' website.

"RTB does recognize the fossil record as a reasonably accurate history of life on Earth, including the existence of hominids before modern humans. But RTB scholars also firmly believe a that God supernaturally and miraculously created Adam and Eve from the "dust of the earth" (not a pre-existing being), just as described in Genesis 1 and 2. Adam and Eve were the first humans, and from them came the entire human race."

I don't remember the Bible ever talking about the existence of beings before Adam and Eve. Jesus even said, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." Mark 10:6. When I read this answer, the first thing I notice is the concession of hominids before Adam and Eve. Then look how we can make this fit in the Bible. Man's science is not accurate. Man makes mistakes and for us to impose our lack of understanding as humans on God is insane. Next you'll tell me God has to abide by physical laws of this world.

If you believe that Genesis is to be interpreted allegorically, then tell me was Satan really a snake in the garden of Eden? Did man really eat the forbidden fruit? If not, what was the first sin committed? When did it happen? If we don't know this truth, then how do we really know we are sinners? Then do we really need to be saved? The introduction of sin into mankind comes from a mythical book at the beginning of the Bible called Genesis. This sounds like a way to claim there is more than one way to God or light or whatever you call it.

[zoegirl]

Since when is Dr/ Ross's reading allegorical??!?

And since when is believing that there were animals who we call hominids so destructive to the theology we hold dear? It is very clear that he is separating them from humans?

The Bible also doesn't mention bacteria, fungi, protists specifically, nor does it bring up woolly mammoths and giant sloths and yet we understand them to be animals from the past.

So what are these hominid fossils, then, to you?

[Canuckster1127]

There's nothing wrong with reading a passage in the Bible allegorically, IF the evidence of the passage indicates that that is the manner in which the original author intended it and the original audience received it. If that is the case, than the underlying message of the allegory IS the literal or intended meaning.

In the case of Genesis, however, there's no reason to see it overall as metaphorical or allegorical. Genesis, in my opinion, in chapters 1 - 11 was written by Moses to the nation of Israel during the time of the Exodus and it was intended to provide them with an answer as to who they were as a people and why and how God has chosen them. It included some oral tradition with which they were already familiar and it included a framework in which Israel was to see the hab of God at work and pointing toward them (and Christ) as God's means of blessing the nations.

The context is in a pre-scientific era and culture and the language in that regard is not precise.

Ironically, for me, I see the YEC interpretation as more allegorical in the sense that it attempts to read elements into the text that are not there literally in an attempt to justify a hermeneutical approach that they believe is necessary to support other elements of their theology and maintain consistency in a tight logical structure. This type of approach is completely foreign to the thinking and culture of the Hebrews in my estimation and it in effect elevates the hermeneutic over the Scripture itself.

[erawdrah]

There's nothing wrong with reading a passage in the Bible allegorically, IF the evidence of the passage indicates that that is the manner in which the original author intended it and the original audience received it. If that is the case, than the underlying message of the allegory IS the literal or intended meaning.

I've been trying to think of a passage that I think is allegorical.

In the case of Genesis, however, there's no reason to see it overall as metaphorical or allegorical. Genesis, in my opinion, in chapters 1 - 11 was written by Moses to the nation of Israel during the time of the Exodus and it was intended to provide them with an answer as to who they were as a people and why and how God has chosen them. It included some oral tradition with which they were already familiar and it included a framework in which Israel was to see the hab of God at work and pointing toward them (and Christ) as God's means of blessing the nations.

The context is in a pre-scientific era and culture and the language in that regard is not precise.

I agree with Genesis being the history of the world with focus on the Israeli nation. But I think "pre-scientific, pre-culture, and non precise language" is stretching it. The book of Job was written not too long after the flood and that's a wealth of scientific information as well as pretty cultural and precise language.

Ironically, for me, I see the YEC interpretation as more allegorical in the sense that it attempts to read elements into the text that are not there literally in an attempt to justify a hermeneutical approach that they believe is necessary to support other elements of their theology and maintain consistency in a tight logical structure. This type of approach is completely foreign to the thinking and culture of the Hebrews in my estimation and it in effect elevates the hermeneutic over the Scripture itself.

I find it odd that a literal Genesis is not accepted since it was quoted from or used as a picture 200 times in the new testament. And I find it more allegorical that "And the evening and the morning were the first day." is considered something other than a 24 hour period of time. What elements am I "reading" into the text that are not there literally?

[Canuckster1127]

I used the word allegory because you introduced the word in your earlier post. An allegory is a specific type of literary form where there are multiple applications and each element is representative of something else. Pilgrim's progress is an example. On a higher level, an allegory is sometimes used as a word for a metaphor in general.

Passages of metaphors abound. Jesus' parables were a form of metaphor. Many things Jesus had to say at time involved the use of hyperbole.

It's not hard to find examples of metaphors throughout the OT and NT. It's sometimes hard to come to agreement as to what they meant and in what context they were used.

What do you mean by the use of the word "literal?" That's a word that is bandied about and used by some to mean, the simplest and most straight-forward meaning of the words and sentences in a passage. That may be the intention of the human author (and the Holy Spirit) and have been the understanding of the original audience hearing or reading the original writing. But not necessarily. When Jesus said of Jerusalem, "How often would I have gathered ye unto me, as a hen gathers her chicks", he wasn't suggesting he or God was a big chicken. That's pretty obvious there. Other areas are not so obvious.

The fact that many portions and information within the Bible can apply in the realm of science does not make the language conform to the scientific method within the Bible. Attempting to read passages in that mind frame can introduce elements that were not in the mind of the original author or audience and when we carry in elements like that to our interpretation and understanding of a passage then we are eisogeting and reading into the text something that was not intended by the original speaker/writer or understood by the audience. Might it be true and applicable? That's possible I suppose in some instances but if we're going to approach the text with the understanding that it is authoritative, then it behooves us to seek to eliminate those elements to the greatest extent we can and to let the text speak for itself. In general, both YEC and OEC proponents are attempting to do that with Genesis. It's not generous or charitable to impugn the motives of those who disagree with us. Addressing the methods and conclusions however is fair game.

I find it odd that a literal Genesis is not accepted since it was quoted from or used as a picture 200 times in the new testament. And I find it more allegorical that "And the evening and the morning were the first day." is considered something other than a 24 hour period of time. What elements am I "reading" into the text that are not there literally?

You're using the word "literal" in a manner that I haven't and if we don't agree on what forms the basis of a "literal" understanding then we're going to be speaking past one another. I am OEC. I accept and affirm the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture. I believe Genesis is a part of Scripture. The translation of the word "yom" (day) is the issue.

The english word day roughly equates to the meanings possible of yom in Hebrew. It can mean the daylight portion of a solar day, it can mean a 24 hour day or it can mean a long period of time. We speak of "the day of the Romans" for example. The issue is the intent of the author, the understanding of the original audience and that is determined by attempting to draw out the meaning by placing yourself in the position of those parties, seeking to understand the components and context of the passage and much more can be said about that.

There are many elements within the text that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the use of the word "yom" in this instance is more consistent with the concept of a long period of time than a 24 hour day. Take for example, the question as to why there would be a 24 hour day in a scientific sense if the sun and the moon were not created to the 4th day. That in itself is enough to indicate that we're not speaking of literal 24 hour days or using precise scientific language and indeed it would be unreasonable to assume otherwise.

Have you examined some of the articles on the main page that address these issues in more detail? I'm happy to have this discussion but for it to be productive we're going to have to have some level of agreement as to what we mean when we use some of these terms and also to not attribute positions that the other party has already clarified, such as the word "allegory" or "metaphorical" toward Genesis.

blessings,

bart