@Sean Pitman Daniel is largely a prophetic book and the passage …

Comment on SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines by krissmith777.

@Sean Pitman

Daniel is largely a prophetic book and the passage you reference is clearly a prophetic passage. Prophecies clearly use symbolic language throughout the Bible. Both Daniel and Revelation are filled with symbols that are clearly not intended to be taken literally. Jesus himself often used obvious symbols and parables in this teaching of the people.

He-hem. You said that the term “evening and morning” indicated that the creation days were meant to be literal days. The way many young earth creationists talk, they usually leave no room for the terms to mean nothing else than a literal day whenever they are used in the Bible. That would ALSO implicate the 2300 “evenings and mornings” since they leave no room for exception.

A problem with your making an exception for Daniel 8:14 “because it is profecy” is demonstrated by the fact that there are MANY examples of “days” being used in prophesy in the Bible in which they turned out to be literal days. Also, there is a time when Daniel profecied an amount of 7 years in Daniel 4:25, the word עִדָּן (or iddan) is used which actually literally means “years.”(Strong’s H5732) –It actually turned out to be literal years, but using your position that Daniel is prophetic, and therefore not to be taken literally since a “day is equal to a year,” then we should wonder why this prophetic “7 years” did not turn out to be 2,520 years.

n contrast, Genesis is not a book of prophecy and is not written in a style that obviously lends itself to be taken in a non-literal, allegorical, or parabolic manner.

I notice you insist on making no qualifications. — If you mean to say that it talks about Abraham, Noah, Jacob, and Joseph in historical terms, then I agree with you. But I do make the qualification for Genesis chapter one, as I have already pointed out that that particular chapter is written in poetic form called “parallelism” as well as “block logic.”
Link: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/23_genesis_1.html

If you claim that the first chapters are obviously non-literal,

“Chapter 1.” Singular. Not chapters,” as in plural. As I have said, that chapter is written in “parallelism,” which is Hebrew poetry, which is the same style that the Psalms are written in.

…you have to say that the rest of the book, to include the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph were intended to be non-literal parables as well

Logical Fallacy: Slippery Slope. The conclusion by no means necessarily follows. I have already explained to you that I have no problem with Abraham, Noah, Joseph existing. — Just because I read Genesis 1 (which is written in poetic form) as poetry, it doesn’t follow that I read the rest of Genesis (which is written in historical format) in a non-literal way.

krissmith777 Also Commented

SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@David Read:

No one says that the builders can “create with the word.” — God cannot be compared to builders.

Did God need a “power generator” to see what he was doing while he was creating the earth and the creatures in it before the forth day?– I would venture to say “no.”

Implying that God would probably need a power generator WOULD still work to demean…since it would set limitations on his creative ability.

Does God have limitations to his creative ability? No. Do human builders? Yes.

As I was reading this reply, I remembered one mocking comment that a skeptic of Genesis said. He said:

And God saw the light was good, because now he could see what he was doing.

Now I can see this with human builders… But I stand by my statement that it demeans God.


SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@Ken:

Let’s say we were in a room together and you were all teaching me the correct interpretation of Genesis. Let’s say each of your as teachers had a different, albeit slight, interpretation. Would it be wrong of me as a novice to ask if there was an empirical methodology to resolve the issue. Isn’t this what science does without the bias of faith or non faith?

It wouldn’t be wrong of you at all. In fact, I would encourage it.


SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@BobRyan:

I didn’t say that that Revelation 21 said that the earth had no light; just that it cannot work with the first three Creation days having both “morning and evening” because Rev 21:25 clearly says that in God’s glory there is NO night, and therefore no evening.