@Sean Pitman: It is very hard to argue with the …

Comment on SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines by krissmith777.

@Sean Pitman:

It is very hard to argue with the definition of “days” being marked off by “evenings and mornings” representing anything other, in the mind of the author of Genesis, than literal days

Then I have question for you: In Daniel 8:14, the tern “evenings and mornings” are also used for the 2,300 days, that is in the literal Hebrew wording since the Hebrew words “boqer” and “ereb” are used; the very same words used in Genesis. Are the 2,300 evenings and mornings in that particular verse therefore literal days?

I realize you may want to make the claim that in prophesy, a “day” is equal to a “year.” But then we will run into an inconsistency that the “day” with “evening and morning” only means one thing verses another only when it fits into someone’s theology.

The term “evening and morning” are used in non-literal ways in the Bible certain times; Psalms 90:6, as an example. The usage of the term by no means implies that it is necessarily literal.

Jesus quoted Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as an authoritative Divinely inspired historical account in His teaching about divorce (Matthew 19:3-6; Mark 10:2-9),

Jesus was not talking about the length of the Creation days, all he was doing was citing Genesis to the extent that “God made male and female,” which is absolutely obvious. The context of what Jesus was talking about had to do with divorce, and nothing to do with the process or length of Creation.

and by referring to Noah as a real historical person and the Flood as a real historical event, and in His teaching about the ‘coming of the Son of man’ (Matthew 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-27).

And your point is? I do not now (nor have I ever) dismiss the plausibility that Noah existed or that he built and ark.

Do you, as a Christian, think that Jesus, as the direct Son of God, didn’t really know true history? If so, how can you believe Jesus when He said, “I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightening”? (Luke 10:18 NIV) Or, how can you believe Jesus when He claimed to have personally known and even existed before Abraham? (John 8:58 NIV)

You are committing the logical fallacy of a “slippery slope.” Besides, Jesus himself said “I saw” in the passage, and therefore it is to be considered literal since there is no other way to put it.

Other biblical authors held the same view. For example, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, and Noah are referred to in 15 other books of the Bible in literal terms. For example, Paul writes: ‘For as by one man’s [Adam’s] disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one [Jesus] shall many be made righteous’ (Romans 5:19).

People talk about the “little boy who called wolf” in literal terms. Does that mean that he litteraly existed? –But your argument completely assumes that all Christians who accept evolution do not accept the existence of Adam, Eve or even Noah. That is a wrong assumption, as many do accept their existence. Neither am I close minded to the idea of their existence; in fact I would be thrilled if they did.

Cherry picking a few rare outliers here and there really isn’t convincing to most candid minds who carefully consider the text.

Sean, you’re not one to talk about Cherry Picking. You cited Taung with a quote that mentions Sarfati. Both men are Young Earth Creationists, and Sarfati is not even a linguist. — On the other hand, one of my sources is Jeff A. Benner of the Ancient Hebrew Research Center who is NOT even involved in the debate one way or the other…I think my sources are somewhat less bias than yours are.

As for your citation of Hermann Gunkel, I am really puzzled. As far as I can tell, he was a Professor of the Old Testament, however that does not make him an expert in Biblical Hebrew since many in the same field do not know Hebrew. BUT, if you are going to cite him as a reliable source, I would wonder if you would think that his “Documentary Hypothesis” would be reliable? And if not, then can’t it be said that you are “cherry picking” as well?

Your quotation of James Barr is misleading… In fact, I already mentioned how his usage by Young Earth Creationists has been abused. It is true that Barr says that a more forward reading does lead to a literal six day creation, but he also points out the following:

… it’s really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence, as of appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is.

Notice that he says that the “linguistic competence” has nothing to do with such an interpretation. He also adds:

The only thing I would say to qualify this is that most professors may avoid much involvement in that sort of argument and so may not say much explicitly about it one way or the other.

He makes it clear he thinks that the literal reading is accurate, but he also makes it clear that that is just an opinion, not a fact! He also adds that most experts in the field would not take sides on this topic.

Now, there are many serious scholars of Hebrew who don’t believe the Genesis author(s) got it right, but arguing that the author(s) got it wrong isn’t the same thing as arguing that they didn’t intend to write a literal narrative of actual historical events.

Not many serious scholars? What is your statistic behind that? I don’t want a quote; I want a survey if you are going to make such a statement; A Gallup Poll, a Pew Poll, a Rasmussen Poll… a source that is known to be reliable.

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.