Evidence for God from Science

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:And again, that's because the argument was stacked in your favor with the notion that the only literal read is a 24-hr yom. Anything else must be allegorical. That's your premise and it is false, Jac. You can't justify it.

Byblos, if I'm reading Jac right he's saying that, while the day-age interpretation of yom IS a literal interpretation, this has no precedent in the CFs. He's calling anything other than a 24-hour reading and a day-age reading "allegorical" and "figurative," thus saying we have no precedent in the CFs.

Has anyone made the point that CF's held to an interpretation that was BOTH day-age, and literal?

No I don't think so Rick. I personally see no evidence where we can say a CF held to a literal "day-age" interpretation.

I guess then why are we debating this if we don't have anyone saying that a CF held this interpretation? We know that some CF's held other interpretations other than 24 hour days. Did the literal meaning of yom meaning a long, finite period of time only exist since we've had a better understanding of science? I mean, was "a long, finite period of time" added as a literal definition of yom? Or, was it always a literal definition, but not used until recently?

I think you'd probably have to go to each CF and try to determine which spoke Hebrew (if you could) and which didn't and then on the basis of that try to infer whether their position could reasonably be traced to their understanding of the word, "yom". You'd have to do that both for those appealed to by OECs or YECs.

If the CF didn't speak Hebrew and is accepting a 24 hour day on the basis of translated texts in other languages that may not have an exact equivilent word then the "literal" hermeneutic appealed to is pretty meaningless and again, applies a double standard to each situation claiming the "literal" hermeneutic is de facto always young earth and then disclaiming the possibility of an OEC type understanding by returning to that assumption, is where I'm seeing circularity.

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:And again, that's because the argument was stacked in your favor with the notion that the only literal read is a 24-hr yom. Anything else must be allegorical. That's your premise and it is false, Jac. You can't justify it.

Byblos, if I'm reading Jac right he's saying that, while the day-age interpretation of yom IS a literal interpretation, this has no precedent in the CFs. He's calling anything other than a 24-hour reading and a day-age reading "allegorical" and "figurative," thus saying we have no precedent in the CFs.

I'm not sure. What I understood Jac as saying is that because DA CLAIMS a literal interpretation, for there to be a precedent among the CFs there necessarily must be at least one CF that stated a DA interpretation AND that interpretation must be literal, not allegorical.

I'm basing myself on the following:

Jac3510 wrote:To show precedent, John, you have to give me a lot more than just a non-solar-day interpretation. Since the claim of the DA view is that it is the literal interpretation of the account, if you want precedent, you need to show me someone who came to the DA view and who took the word yom literally, rather than allegorically.

What I'm saying is that first, we do not have to show DA to show precedent. All we need to show is a non-24 hr interpretation. And second, a non-24 hr interpretation is a literal one.

RickD wrote:Has anyone made the point that CF's held to an interpretation that was BOTH day-age, and literal?

That's sort of what we've all been trying to say to Jac.

I don't think any CF's believed in Day-age as we know Day-age today. Just as no CF believed in YEC as we know it today. There is too much recent science used by both sides. We can't say what any CF would believe today unless he had the technology to help his interpretation. Both sides use nature(all of creation) in their interpretation. And, nature is viewed differently today.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I think you'd probably have to go to each CF and try to determine which spoke Hebrew (if you could) and which didn't and then on the basis of that try to infer whether their position could reasonably be traced to their understanding of the word, "yom". You'd have to do that both for those appealed to by OECs or YECs.

If the CF didn't speak Hebrew and is accepting a 24 hour day on the basis of translated texts in other languages that may not have an exact equivilent word then the "literal" hermeneutic appealed to is pretty meaningless and again, applies a double standard to each situation claiming the "literal" hermeneutic is de facto always young earth and then disclaiming the possibility of an OEC type understanding by returning to that assumption, is where I'm seeing circularity.

Rick, I think Bart has nailed it down here. The fact that some CFs held to 24-hour days does not exactly make them Young Earth Creationists. I think Bart's criteria above would need to be applied in order to make any reasonable judgement.

Byblos wrote:I'm not sure. What I understood Jac as saying is that because DA CLAIMS a literal interpretation, for there to be a precedent among the CFs there necessarily must be at least one CF that stated a DA interpretation AND that interpretation must be literal, not allegorical.

You might be right; you don't sound far wrong to me.

Byblos wrote:What I'm saying is that first, we do not have to show DA to show precedent. All we need to show is a non-24 hr interpretation. And second, a non-24 hr interpretation is a literal one.

I'm saying EXACTLY the same as you, Byblos. It's important to expose the myth of a 24-hour day consensus among the CFs.

With regards the aim of showing a non-24 hour, literal interpretation... Isn't one literal interpretation of yom <a period of time>?

DannyM wrote:

Byblos wrote:I'm not sure. What I understood Jac as saying is that because DA CLAIMS a literal interpretation, for there to be a precedent among the CFs there necessarily must be at least one CF that stated a DA interpretation AND that interpretation must be literal, not allegorical.

You might be right; you don't sound far wrong to me.

Byblos wrote:What I'm saying is that first, we do not have to show DA to show precedent. All we need to show is a non-24 hr interpretation. And second, a non-24 hr interpretation is a literal one.

I'm saying EXACTLY the same as you, Byblos. It's important to expose the myth of a 24-hour day consensus among the CFs.

With regards the aim of showing a non-24 hour, literal interpretation... Isn't one literal interpretation of yom <a period of time>?

Why do we need to show that a CF believed in a "literal" long period of time? Some believed in 24 hour days, some didn't. Why does it matter. Some people believed in a Geo-centric universe, some didn't. In that case, modern science has ruled Geo-centricity out. As Hugh Ross suggests, if his model is correct, science will soon "rule out" YEC. I think I'll sit here and wait..........

RickD wrote:Why do we need to show that a CF believed in a "literal" long period of time? Some believed in 24 hour days, some didn't. Why does it matter. Some people believed in a Geo-centric universe, some didn't. In that case, modern science has ruled Geo-centricity out. As Hugh Ross suggests, if his model is correct, science will soon "rule out" YEC. I think I'll sit here and wait..........

Rick, personally I don't feel it is important. What is important to me is exposing the myth of a consensus among the CFs regarding literal 24-hour days.

Have you got a link to Ross saying this? I've got the RTB website on file...should I just go and find it on there?

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Why do we need to show that a CF believed in a "literal" long period of time? Some believed in 24 hour days, some didn't. Why does it matter. Some people believed in a Geo-centric universe, some didn't. In that case, modern science has ruled Geo-centricity out. As Hugh Ross suggests, if his model is correct, science will soon "rule out" YEC. I think I'll sit here and wait..........

Rick, personally I don't feel it is important. What is important to me is exposing the myth of a consensus among the CFs regarding literal 24-hour days.

Have you got a link to Ross saying this? I've got the RTB website on file...should I just go and find it on there?

Danny, Ross says it in the back of his book:"A Matter of Days", where he talks of 24-hour day interpretations alongside old-earth day age interpretations. He makes some predictions as to what should happen when nature, scientific discovery, and consistent interpretation of the Bible come together in the future. If you haven't read "a Matter of Days" yet, It is a great book.EDIT:Danny, why do you think it's important to expose the myth of a consensus among the CFs? Even if they all believed in 24-hour days, what significance is that?

RickD wrote:Danny, Ross says it in the back of his book:"A Matter of Days", where he talks of 24-hour day interpretations alongside old-earth day age interpretations. He makes some predictions as to what should happen when nature, scientific discovery, and consistent interpretation of the Bible come together in the future. If you haven't read "a Matter of Days" yet, It is a great book.

EDIT:Danny, why do you think it's important to expose the myth of a consensus among the CFs? Even if they all believed in 24-hour days, what significance is that?

Thanks Rick. I think it is about time I read this book.

Well, for one it is simply a false assertion. Two, it is asserted by Mr. Ham as though it is the coup de grace in the whole Young/Old debate. So it fails twice on the "truth" scale.

DannyM wrote:

RickD wrote:Danny, Ross says it in the back of his book:"A Matter of Days", where he talks of 24-hour day interpretations alongside old-earth day age interpretations. He makes some predictions as to what should happen when nature, scientific discovery, and consistent interpretation of the Bible come together in the future. If you haven't read "a Matter of Days" yet, It is a great book.

EDIT:Danny, why do you think it's important to expose the myth of a consensus among the CFs? Even if they all believed in 24-hour days, what significance is that?

Thanks Rick. I think it is about time I read this book.

Well, for one it is simply a false assertion. Two, it is asserted by Mr. Ham as though it is the coup de grace in the whole Young/Old debate. So it fails twice on the "truth" scale.

Danny, I think anyone who has studied YEC/OEC for any length of time, knows Mr. Ham's assertions regarding OEC are based on some agenda he has, and not based on reality. "A Matter of Days" is the best book I've read from either side on the age of the Earth issue. I think it is a great read because Ross really states his stance. I can now see when people misrepresent Ross, because I now know what he believes. I've found more than a couple prominent YECs misrepresent OEC. Now I can see right through their "straw man" arguments.

RickD wrote:Danny, I think anyone who has studied YEC/OEC for any length of time, knows Mr. Ham's assertions regarding OEC are based on some agenda he has, and not based on reality. "A Matter of Days" is the best book I've read from either side on the age of the Earth issue. I think it is a great read because Ross really states his stance. I can now see when people misrepresent Ross, because I now know what he believes. I've found more than a couple prominent YECs misrepresent OEC. Now I can see right through their "straw man" arguments.

I'm certain we can find the same thing on both sides of the camp and unless we can present proof of one's agenda it would be prudent to keep it to ourselves.

Byblos wrote:

RickD wrote:Danny, I think anyone who has studied YEC/OEC for any length of time, knows Mr. Ham's assertions regarding OEC are based on some agenda he has, and not based on reality. "A Matter of Days" is the best book I've read from either side on the age of the Earth issue. I think it is a great read because Ross really states his stance. I can now see when people misrepresent Ross, because I now know what he believes. I've found more than a couple prominent YECs misrepresent OEC. Now I can see right through their "straw man" arguments.

I'm certain we can find the same thing on both sides of the camp and unless we can present proof of one's agenda it would be prudent to keep it to ourselves.

I never stated what his agenda is. I just stated that I "think" he has an agenda because of his attitude. I really don't know what his agenda is. I just believe it is something other than seeing the truth.

RickD, you seem to have done almost a full turn about on creation since coming to these boards. It's good Ross' book is helping to clarify the OEC Day-Age side of things for you. I have had A Matter of Days sitting on my shelf for some time, but have not ever gotten around to reading it... think I got all "creationed out" by the time I got it.

Jac3510 wrote: Neither of those say that ALL the CFs held to YEC. Ham said YEC was the dominant, not only, view, and that most, not all, held to it.

Well he is wrong... There is no real proof that YEC was the dominant view among the Cf's. Sure, some gave some early dates for the existence of humans, but it wasn't tied to a literal six day solar creation.. There is no proof that is what everyone believed..

Jac3510 wrote:First, the issue is with precedence in church history, not Jewish history.

Like I was saying before... Why not? We have the Jewish OT.. Would you learn to speak dutch from a Chinese man or a Dutch man?

Jac3510 wrote:Second, look at the words I bolded in your quote. Let that be true. The DA view, as I proved with two separate quotes from Rich, claims its view to be a LITERAL interpretation of the text. As such, it doesn't do you any good to sight anyone--Jewish or Gentile--who takes the text non-literally.

No... Non-literal in a sense of a literal six day creation.. That is what we are saying...

Jac3510 wrote:Third, your basic premise is wrong. By the first century, most of the Jews had forgotten Hebrew and spoke Aramaic. In fact, there is good evidence from the LXX, translated between 200 years before and fifty years after Christ, that they didn't have as good of a grasp on Hebrew as scholars to today. Do keep in mind that Hebrew was no more their native tongue than it is ours, and especially by the middle ages, Hebrew was basically a dead language.

That is not true... The Hebrew language has always been around as evidenced. It never really died or was forgotten as you claim...

"Hebrew has been in continuous use as a religious and literary language since the 10th-century BCE. It faded as a spoken language at a disputed point in antiquity (sometime between the 4th-century BCE and the Roman period) but continued to be used as a lingua franca among scholars and Jews traveling in foreign countries throughout history. It was revived as a spoken language in the early 20th century."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_language

Jac3510 wrote:Fourth, the fact that many CFs adopted an allegorical hermeneutic only proves my point, which one of you are addressing. You continually bring up problems that have no impact on my basic assertion, which I'll repeat yet again and the end of this rather long post for convenience."

Again, you seem to be confusing the hermeneutic with a literal six day creation...