Comment on SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines by krissmith777.
Yes, I do need a poll. Barr makes it clear that he “thinks” that he represents the opinion; he never says that he does! Huge difference, pal. –What statistic does Barr cite? None, nada. Has he done a survey himself? No! Does it seem more likely that he just simply assumed it? Yes! — Until you cite more than pure opinion to back up your own, there is no hard reason to accept the argument’s premise. Until any actual confirmation, Barr’s opinion, though interesting, holds no real weight.
You haven’t addressed my citation of one Hebrew Linguist who has NO vested interest in the Old Earth/Young Earth debate on the meaning of Genesis. Considering that most of your quotations come from some who are known to be biased, I find Jeff A. Benner’s take on Genesis to be much more interesting since he has NO vested interest in the debate. — Ting, Sarafti, and most of the others you do cite, however, DO have vested interests…. And you have not answered my question of why you even cited Hermann Gunkel.
And you completely dodged other points that I have.. I really wanted you to deal with those. So I will repeat them:
You started off by saying:
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
My reply:
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.
You add:
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),
To which I say:
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.
—
I’m not going to repeat everything in my former pose since I feel it unnecessary. — Sorry to repeat what I did already say, but when I make a point, I make it with the assumption that it should be answered.
Also, notably, you completely ignored my examples from the last 2000 years of Christians and Jews who did NOT read Genesis literally as far as the creation days are concerned. I have already pointed out Philo of Alexandria from the first centuries, BC and AD who understood them as not being actual days at all, as well as Cyprian of Carthage. Both of these men had different opinions as to what the “creation days” actually were. Many Christians and Jews did… Some Early Christians and Jews believed in a literal Creation week, and many others did not! If the first chapter of Genesis were so straight forward as you apparently think, then that begs the question of why the early interpretations were so diverse, and why many of them were non-literal, as far as the Creation week is concerned. — Philo of Alexandria is a really good example, since I have mentioned him several times: That it because he was a Jew and would have understood the Hebrew for himself…probably better than any Hebrew linguist of our day.
A really good example of a Biblical Linguist that accepts the “old earth†view is Gleason Archer…
Now you cannot rule out Gleason Archer at all, considering that he worked on many Bible Translation committees, including those for the New American Standard Bible and also the New International Version…
I would say, this would meet your definition of a “serious scholar.â€
Table of Contents
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.
