Posted on 08/06/2007 6:34:13 AM PDT by steveg1961
Oh, really. Then how do you explain the many usages of yom in the Bible that do not refer to a simple 24-hour period?
Come on, now. Get out your Hebrew Bible, your Strong's reference, your Hebrew dictionary, and explain to me exactly how you support your position. I'll be waiting.
claiming the creation account in genesis is made up of other creation accounts and/or jewish stories, and is not straight forward history, etc, is nothing but the tired old regurgitation of the jdhp disproven tripe, or the ‘barrowed from other myths’ “higher” criticism school, which has also been shown to be wrong.
Since I wasn’t posting to you, I guess you’ll have to read back and figure it out.
Re: Yom
“[Meredith]Kline wrote: ‘... Certainly, Genesis indicates that there were steps or stages. The debate is over the time duration of each step ... To be sure, the word “Yom” or “day” is almost always used to refer to a 24-hour period so the prima facie indication would be the same in Genesis ... My concern here is that the literary structure may indicate something else ...’”
The Framework Hypothesis is a literary understanding of the 6 days of creation. ..It underscores the poetic nature of the writing and even defines it as a form of Hebraic poetry that highlights the nature and character of God in creation. In the framework there are days of creating and days of filling. Day one goes with day 4, day 2 with day 5, day 3 with day 6. And all is balanced out.
It shows that Good is not only creatively spontaneous but also does things with order. It asserts that the creation narrative is not a scientific explanation but a literary one that has more to do with the nature of God than with giving a historic account of creation. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=10570
More:
· ‘To rebut the literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation week propounded by the young-earth theorists is a central concern of this article. At the same time, the exegetical evidence adduced also refutes the harmonistic day-age view. The conclusion is that as far as the time frame is concerned, with respect to both the duration and sequence of events, the scientist is left free of biblical constraints in hypothesizing about cosmic origins.’[Kline, M.G., Space and Time in the Genesis Cosmogony, Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 48:2, 1996] Meredith Kline is a leading advocate of the ‘framework hypothesis
In note 47, Kline says:
‘In this article I have advocated an interpretation of biblical cosmogony according to which Scripture is open to the current scientific view of a very old universe and, in that respect, does not discountenance the theory of the evolutionary origin of man.’ In an unedited draft of this paper, Kline wrote: ‘... Certainly, Genesis indicates that there were steps or stages. The debate is over the time duration of each step ... To be sure, the word “Yom” or “day” is almost always used to refer to a 24-hour period so the prima facie indication would be the same in Genesis ... My concern here is that the literary structure may indicate something else ...’
· Henri Blocher, another leading Framework proponent, wrote: ‘This hypothesis overcomes a number of problems that plagued the commentators [including] the confrontation with the scientific vision of the most distant past.’ [Blocher, H., In the Beginning, IVP, p. 50, 1984.]
· ‘We have to admit here that the exegetical basis of the creationists is strong. ... In spite of the careful biblical and scientific research that has accumulated in support of the creationists’ view, there are problems that make the theory wrong to most (including many evangelical) scientists. ... Data from various disciplines point to a very old earth and even older universe...’ [Boice, J. M., Genesis: An Expositional Commentary, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, 1:57-62, 1982.] James Montgomery Boice (1938-2000), a staunch defender of Biblical inerrancy.
· Bruce K. Waltke, leading Hebrew and Old Testament Scholar: ‘The days of creation may also pose difficulties for a strict historical account. Contemporary scientists almost unanimously discount the possibility of creation in one week, and we cannot summarily discount the evidence of the earth sciences.’ [Waltke, B.K. and Fredricks, C.J., Genesis: A Commentary, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, p. 77, 2001]
· ‘It is of course admitted that, taking this account [Genesis] by itself, it would be most natural to understand the word [day] in its ordinary sense; but if that sense brings the Mosaic account into conflict with facts [millions of years], and another sense avoids such conflict, then it is obligatory on us to adopt that other.’ ~ [Hodge, C., Systematic Theology, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI, USA, pp. 570-571, 1997. ] Charles Hodge (1797-1878) was a systematic theologian at Princeton seminary, who wrote many books and articles defending the truths of Christianity, including biblical inerrancy
· ‘..confessedly, it would not have been as readily deduced from the Genesis text had it not been for the evidences advanced by secular science.’ [Payne, J.B., The Theology of the Older Testament, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, p. 136, 1972.] J. Barton Payne (1922-1979), Presbyterian Old Testament scholar.
· ‘From a superficial reading, the impression received is that the entire creative process took place in six twenty-four hour days. If this was the true intent of the Hebrew author this seems to run counter to modern scientific research, which indicated that the planet earth was created several billion years ago ... the more recently expanded knowledge of nuclear physics has brought into play another type of evidence which seems to confirm the great antiquity of the Earth, that is, the decay of radioactive minerals.’ [Archer, G.L., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Moody, Chicago, p. 187, 1985.] Gleason Archer, Hebrew scholar and staunch defender of biblical inerrancy
bttt
hmmmm, so you post links to an old earth website, and their ‘science’ is the end-all be-all of the discussion?
and i suppose if those folks at AIG or ICR or Trueorigins, those with science degrees, had their links put up, that would be the end-all be-all for you?
The Grand Canyon is relatively recent by geological time standards. The question of great age comes up when you try to explain the strata.
Of course, even millions of years is difficult for YECs to explain.
Exactly! I have said a number of times during these debates that the creation account takes up about 2 pages in the Bible that I regularly use. The emphasis on the creation account in Genesis concentrates on two things: (1) God, not something or somebody else, created the entire universe out of nothing; and (2) God is outside of the universe like an author is outside of a book (this changed when Jesus came to earth and the creator became part of the creation for a time). Genesis concentrates on the who, not the how.
Remember how in my previous post I included the clause,
"....when it does not receive a specific contextual modifier...."
I did so specifically in anticipation that you'd raise just such objection as you did. I would explain these usages of yowm by noting that in the CONTEXTS in which they appear, another usage besides a 24-hour period is indicated. Hebrew is a high-context language. To understand the meaning of a word which can take one of several meanings, we must be cognizant of the context in which the word is used. In the examples your cite gives, the context would demand other uses of yowm. In Genesis 1, there is no textual indication that this is the case.
This is a somewhat incorrect claim. Biblical literalists accept allegory, parabolism, and like literary devices where the context indicates them, or where the text specifically says it is using them. For instance, Paul in Galatians 4:22-28 specifically adduces an allegory between Mt. Sinai/Hagar/bondage and Mt. Zion/sarah/freedom. In fact, true biblical literalism is that which takes the Bible at face value - including a knowledge of when the Bible is speaking hyperbolically, allegorically, etc.
Sceptics' imagination about what Biblical literalism is amounts to little more than a forced caricature. This is why we see sceptics making idiotic accusations that Bible believers "think trees can talk" or that "snails melt" or that "Jesus wants us to rip our eyes out".
As for your insistence that the Genesis creation account is "straight forward history" am I to take it that you find nothing allegorical in, for example, Genesis 1 through 3?
One must grant, however, that an extraordinary level of disagreement exists amongst those allegedly possessing this knowledge. I don't view that as an indictment of the Bible, by the way. It is, however, an indictment of those who authoritatively denounce all Biblical readings other than their own.
Not long ago I viewed the creation account through this lens. I considered yowm to designate a general period of time or an unspecified era. But live and learn: time is not a constant, and like matter, it did not always exist. Time is relative, differing considerably in relation to the velocity, energy, and/or mass of an observer relative to another. At the velocity of light, for example, time stands still. As we progress in this study, with the help of physicists, I shall prove scientifically that from Yahuweh's vantage point at creation, not only is the universe six twenty-four hour days old, but that each day uses the natural, or universal spiral to lay out a precise timeline from light to life over the course of nearly 16 billion years looking back in time from our perspective.
http://yadayahweh.com/
i find nothing of the six days of creation that are described as allegorical.
There is probably nothing allegorical about the passages saying the earth cannot move, or that the sun travels around the earth.
i referred specifically to the six days of creation and God doing the creating, where is the allegory in those acts of creation????
Please take note that I quoted non-left-wing Hebrew Scholars in post #304.
True, but I note that most all of them seem to be arguing against a literal 24-hour day interpretation, not on the basis of the text itself, but on supposed "scientific" observations - the observations under contention in this thread.
I merely point out that one's reading needs to be guided by available facts. There was a time when the impossibility of the earth's moving was an article of faith. Saint Augustine addressed to problem of Christians asserting the earth is flat.
You are free to believe whatever you wish, but things taken for granted now as facts were once heresy.
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.