@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
@Sean Pitman:

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.”


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.


SDA Darwinians compromise key church doctrines
@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.