Posted on 05/29/2006 6:28:25 AM PDT by truthfinder9
Why is not the Sabbath closed out like the others?
These and other indications in the text clearly point to something other than normal days.
Why the Days are NOT 24hr Days And no one is saying don't study the 24 hr interpretation, it just seems many young-earthers don't want discussion of anything but their own theory!
There are a lot of what you might refer to as "Pop Christianity" theological apologists among that list, but other than Professor John C.L. Gibson, there are (as far as I can tell) no Professors of Hebrew from any world class university mentioned in your list. There is no statement from Dr. Gibson that the writer of Genesis did not intend to convey a 24 hour day or a universal flood. The list specificially states that these are scholars and theologians who are merely "open to an old earth interpretation." While they may be "open" to it, not a single one of them can refute the statement of Professor Barr that the author of genesis chapter one intended to convey to the readers that the creation took place in a series of six literal 24 hour days.
As noted in the statement from Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, the idea that it took billions of years to create the heavens and the earth and that we are in the seventh day and all that simply was foreign to the Christian Church and to Judaism until the 19th Century. So for 19 Centuries the great body of theological scholarship was in agreement that the passage was intended to convey 24 hour days. Additionally those who argued for a non-literal interpretation up until that time were not arguing for more time than 6 24 hour days, but were arguing that it occurred instantly.
The fact of the matter is that the day/age theory is new. It was developed not on a biblical basis, but as a reaction to scientific theory and data. IOW these men have changed the interpretation of the bible to meet current scientific thought.
Now can you point to any world class Hebrew Scholar at a world class university who actually disagrees with Dr. Barr's statement that Moses intended to convey that these were 24 hour days?
No, they were NOT! Augustine was insistent that it occurred instantly not over any period of time.
And the fact that tye were "open" to other interpretations does not subtract from the fact that Moses clearly intended to convey to the reader that these were 24 hour days.
Since when is Walter Kasier, president of Gordan Conwell a "pop" apologist? He's a world class Hebrew scholar at a world class conservative theological seminary.
In fact most of these people are the some of the most respected in their field. Norm Geisler, J.P. Moreland, pop apologists? Give me a break.
And to say that the day age is new is absurd when as far back as Augustine they were talking about it!
I don't believe I said that they were all "Pop" theologians, I merely stated that there were a lot of what could be called "pop" thelogicans on that list. There is not a single Hebrew scholar from a world class university on that list who refutes Dr. Barr.
In fact most of these people are the some of the most respected in their field. Norm Geisler, J.P. Moreland, pop apologists? Give me a break.
I did not say they were all pop scholars but none of them refutes Barr's assertion regarding the intent of the author of Genesis and none of them are professors of Hebrew at world class UNIVERSITIES.
Notable Christians Open to an Old Earth Interpretation
The title of the link that you suggest indicates that perhaps you didn't follow the implications of what the quote that P-M posted actually said.
It said, "no professor...does not believe..the writers...intended to convey...creation...of six days..of 24 hours..."
Since that is the straight-forward reading of the passage, then to say that it is what the writers "intended to convey."
Your link uses the word "interpretation." That suggests taking the OBVIOUS and applying a methodology to it in order to arrive at an understanding.
The quote above is dealing with the "obvious" PRIOR TO the interpretation.
And the straight-forward, obvious look at the passage says, "6 days."
It is indisputable.
I had some plants outside that I had picked up from my mother in N. Carolina and transported to Ohio.
They've just been sitting around unplanted, and they've been that way for more than 24 hours.
The order of the creation has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the straight-forward reading of the text gives the impression that it was talking about 24 hours.
"The dog bit the mailman."
I can theorize all I want about what a dog might or might not represent, but the straight-forward reading of that sentence says, "dog" and "mailman" and "biting."
You keep bringing up Augustine as if he was a proponent of the theory of evolution. In his treatise on The City of God, chapter 11, he argues that everything that God did in creation he did outside of time and that time did not even begin until after the creation was complete. His argument was that it detracted from the glory of God to suggest that it would have taken God any time at all to complete the creation, not that it took him longer than Moses suggested.
So quit using Augustine to foster your argument for evolutionary theology. He would have laughed at the suggestion.
That's interesting, P-Marlowe writes things that I clearly did not say, but my post gets removed.
Augustine wrote in "The City of God" that "We must bear in mind that these days indeed recall the days of creation, but without in any way being really similar to them."
And in Confessions, Augustine writes that the lack of "evening and morning" on day 7 means they were long days.
Also, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, Basil and Ambrose all point to long days.
So again, I ask how can you claim old-earthism is not historic or that is evolutionary when it predates evolutionary theory?
None of them refute Bar? How do you figure that when all of them disagree with Bar?
So by universities you mean the liberal, secular institutions of learning that, with few exceptions, don't believe in the accruacy of the Bible?
Even skeptics respect Gordan Conwell as a world class institue of higher learning. Playing games with terms like "univeristy" and "siminary" only weaken your argument.
There is a difference between observation and interpretation.
The observation says that there are days, and there is nothing in the observation to insist that one think of them as other than days.
Interpretation is an entirely different issue.
Imho, the final answer will be one that preserves the integrity of the use of "day" and also preserves the integrity of all other factual truth about nature, universe, etc.
Alamo-girl has an interesting take on this relative to the dimension of time.
"It is indisputable"
It's only indisputable if you neglect the contradictions young-earth causes. In biblical study there's a huge difference between superficical reading and in-depth exegeis. Young-earthism is the former rather than the latter.
Your post was removed for ignoring my demand at 113: discuss the issues all you want but do NOT make it personal.
At this point, I remain unconvinced that you have considered anything I've written.
Why the fixation with young earth?
The relativity of time makes the idea of "young earth" also to be relative.
"the final answer will be one that preserves the integrity of the use of "day" and also preserves the integrity of all other factual truth about nature, universe, etc"
That's the point I made, young-earthism contradicts factual truth about nature.
"The observation says that there are days, and there is nothing in the observation to insist that one think of them as other than days. "
The problem is you are reading a modern reading of "days" onto the ancient Hebrew which is completely different in meaning. Reading modern defintions onto the Bible is the first mistake in Biblical study (or study of any ancient document for that matter).
I do not think I'm reading a modern reading of "days" into anything. The literal reading says "days."
Any observer will see "days" and the general nature of the story being in terms of days.
It is only theological interpretation that enables you to say anything else about those "days." A straight-forward observation says "days." Likewise, a straight-forward observeration says: Sun, moon, fish, plant, tree, etc.
I've more than considered what you've said. In fact I've spent a few years studying all sides. There have been some people here that have claimed old-earthism isn't historic or that it is the result of evolution, when I easily showed it wasn't.
The "fixation" is that young-earthism is a prime example of many beliefs in Christianity not based on sound scholarship. I've no problem with those that believe it, but here are the problems:
1. Many believe it not because they can prove it, but someone else told them it was true.
2. Many leaders of young-earth groups regularlly label any Christians who disagree with them as apostates, heretics, etc. How is that sound scholarship?
As far as time goes, it is only relative to motion or acclerated motion (gravity). These "relative" things only occur in limited circumstances in the universe, not with the passage of general time under normal physics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.