@Sean Pitman: The answer is quite obvious to the candid …

Comment on SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines by krissmith777.

@Sean Pitman:

The answer is quite obvious to the candid mind. The prophecy of Daniel 4:25 was specificially in regard to Nebuchadnezzar himself… what would happen to him in particular if he did not follow the Divine warning to him personally? Obviously God was not telling Nebuchadnezzar that he would be driven from men for thousands of years since he was to be restored to his throne after his period of insanity – according to the prophecy. Obviously, this doesn’t make sense if you interpret the 7-years as being thousands of years. And, the fulfillment of the prophecy, as described by Daniel himself, after 7 literal years is an internal explanation of the prophecy.

I am not denying what you are saying here at all. It is absolutely obvious that he seven years were intended as a literal time. However, many evangelical Christians argue the same thing about the 2300 represent something less symbolic and more literal. Their basis for that is that Antiochus Epiphanese is the last of the four goat’s horns that desolates the temple, and then they cite the end of the 2300 evenings and mornings with his death (Daniel 8:25,26) Just saying, if they are right –and reading the context, it appears to me that they are, especially since the goat is called the “kingdom of Greece” (Daniel 8:21) then the days would take on a more literal view if they are associated with the rise and fall of a single man. Now, could they still be non-literal? Yes. I have no dogmatic position one way or the other.

–Wow, we’re really digressing..

If parallelism of structure proves that a passage is not historical then the patriarchal narratives are not historical.

Logical Fallacy: Strawman. I have not said that Genesis 1 was not historical per say, I simply said it was written in a poetic format, and so it must be read as such. Poetry can and, in many cases, does contain true history, but it has to be taken into account that poetry takes on an arrangement to which the author takes some liberties for the flow of the text. I would indeed say that Genesis 1 is historical; to the point that it is simply calling God the creator. That I would not dispute in the slightest detail.

—The examples you give of apparent parallism do not apply since they are out of context in relation to eachother.

Also, as Benner points out, (and something you have not tackled) Genesis 1 is also written from “Block Logic.” Block logic means that it is NOT NECESSARILY in chronological order.. This does not make it un-historical; just that it is not EVERYTHING would be chronological necessarily. We tend to read it in “step logic” because of our modernistic sense.

Quite franckly, I do not see why you would object to Genesis 1 NOT being in (nor intending to be in) chronological order since this this could be a good solution to apparent discrepancies between Science and Scripture: For example, it could reconcile the apparent contradiction of the Sun and stars being created on the fourth day and still having “evening” and “morning” on the three preceding days. (Genesis 1:14, 19)–With this into account, the events ARE historical.

This is why the vast majority of secular scholars of Hebrew, like James Barr, argue that the author of Gensis clearly intended to convey, to his readers, a literal account of true historical events.

You have still not substantiated your claim that the “majority” of Hebrew sholars hold this view, and it will be rejected until an unbiased survey is given.

Besides, I find it interesting that you are resorting to the claim that the “vast majority” of scholars agree with your claim. And quite frankly, I find it no different than claiming that the “vast majority” of scientists agree with me that the old age of the earth and evolution are facts. — Both arguments follow the same logic and the same fallacies.

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.