Age of the Earth: Commentary on formal debate

[AV1611VET]

Where do these ideas come from?

Hi, Willtor

Indeed the context trumps everything in interpreting the Bible.

Your point about the Psalms is an excellent one. Be careful when getting your theology from the books of poetry exclusively.

The Law of First Mention is only a tool for Bible interpretation - and an excellent one at that. It does not mean to interpret that word exclusively throughout the whole Bible, but to use it in cases where you cannot determine the correct definition of a particular word or phrase.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why?

Because the Bible was meant to be interpreted literally. The correct method is technically called the Grammatical-Historical Method, or the Literal Method.

Jesus, Himself interpreted the Scriptures literally.

Allegorizing the Bible --- especially Genesis --- can lead to all sorts of misinterpretations and junk theories.

Again, why?

Please see my previous post to Willtor.

And would that be first in the table of contents of a modern bible or first in terms of which document was first written? And why?

That would be first in word-mention order, using the King James Bible.

And should that not apply to each author individually rather than to the bible as a whole? If not, why not?

No --- the Bible as a whole. There are several reasons for that:

• It's the Law of First Mention.
  Each author had his own style of writing.
  The context of each author was different.
  The reason for each book being written was different.
  The era that some of the books were written in was different.
  The authors wrote from three different continents.
  The authors wrote using three different languages.
  et. al.

But then, why should it apply at all, even for one author?

The Bible's metaphysical Author is God, Who set the overall style. One Author --- 40-some sub-authors.

It seems to me these are very artificial rules that require some substantial reason to accept.

It is a method that has passed the test of time, passed with flying colors when used, and is taught in colleges throughout the United States. In addition, it is the Law of First Mention, not the Theory of First Mention.

Irrelevant. There was no distinction of capital and lower-case letters in the original manuscript. Indeed, IIRC, Hebrew still does not make this distinction today.

But the English does. Ever wonder why "Jesus" is all-capitalized in Matthew 1:25? There's a very good reason for that.

 

[AV1611VET]

Define literally, and define context.

Hi, Shernren

Literally means non-figuratively.

• For example, if I say I "ran into" an old friend yesterday, it doesn't mean I hit him with my car, it means I met him face-to-face.

Context, in its narrowest sense, means taking the verses before and after the verse in question.

• For example, the Bible says ---
  

  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

  But 12 verses later, it says ---
  

  Ye shall not surely die.

In order to reconcile this paradox, one needs to know who is talking to whom. In other words, the context clears it up.

If a literal interpretation would indicate a geocentric cosmogony, wouldn't that literal interpretation have to be modified by our current scientific knowledge to accommodate a heliocentric cosmogony?

No --- extra-biblical knowledge and current scientific knowledge should support it; if not, further scientific research is necessary.

And doesn't that mean that extra-biblical knowledge forms a valid context from which to modify the interpretation of Scripture?

Never --- it's the other way around.

Where science disagrees with the Bible, science is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hi, Assyrian

I hope my previous 2 post have answered your quesions. If not, I'll try my best to do so.

If the death God warned about was spiritual, and I agree with you that it was, what is the basis for saying it brought about physical death and decay into the universe?

When Adam and Eve sinned, they brought entropy into the entire universe ---

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

 

[AV1611VET]

The order of scripture is completely artificial, so basing a 'Law of First Mention' on the order of the appearance of words within it texts is not only artificial but non-sensical.

The order of Scripture, in my opinion, is divine.

There are 39 books in the Old Testament, in the following order:

• 17 historical --- 5 poetical --- 17 prophetic
  
  17 historical = 5 books of Moses + 12 general history
  05 poetical books
  17 prophetic = 5 major prophets + 12 minor prophets
  
  12 general history = 9 pre-exile + 3 post-exile
  12 minor prophets = 9 pre-exile + 3 post-exile

Perfect balance --- the Bible is an amazing book! Do you agree?

 

[gluadys]

Because the Bible was meant to be interpreted literally. The correct method is technically called the Grammatical-Historical Method, or the Literal Method.

Who says? I know the bible doesn't say this of itself. So where do you get this idea from and what is the basis for saying it is correct?

Jesus, Himself interpreted the Scriptures literally.

Perhaps, sometimes. But not all the time.

Allegorizing the Bible --- especially Genesis --- can lead to all sorts of misinterpretations and junk theories.

For most of the church's history, allegorizing the bible was considered the proper way to interpret it.

Please see my previous post to Willtor.

You call it an "excellent" tool of interpretation. I see no reason for this. It strikes me as a downright silly method.

That would be first in word-mention order, using the King James Bible.

Why the KJV?

No --- the Bible as a whole. There are several reasons for that:

• It's the Law of First Mention.

• 
  
  That is what is in question. It cannot be evidence of itself. And it doesn't discriminate between first in time and first in KJV. Or first in any other order of the biblical books. A Jewish bible orders the books differently than a Protestant bible.
  
  
  

  Each author had his own style of writing.
  The context of each author was different.
  The reason for each book being written was different.
  The era that some of the books were written in was different.
  The authors wrote from three different continents.
  The authors wrote using three different languages.
  et. al.

All the more reason to treat each author separately.

The Bible's metaphysical Author is God, Who set the overall style. One Author --- 40-some sub-authors.

The bible has no overall style. It uses dozens of different literary genres.

It is a method that has passed the test of time, passed with flying colors when used, and is taught in colleges throughout the United States. In addition, it is the Law of First Mention, not the Theory of First Mention.

So far as I can see it is neither a Law nor a Theory. I suppose that "passing with flying colours when used" means "yielding results that agree with my literal interpretation."

But the English does. Ever wonder why "Jesus" is all-capitalized in Matthew 1:25? There's a very good reason for that.

Why should the practice of English writing be relevant to documents written in Hebrew?

 

[AV1611VET]

Who says? I know the bible doesn't say this of itself. So where do you get this idea from and what is the basis for saying it is correct?

Whether you're interpreting the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, the Rosetta Stone, or the newspaper (including the comics), use it. Otherwise, you'll spend an inordinate amount of time wondering what is being said.

Perhaps, sometimes. But not all the time.

Forgive me for sounding trite, but if you've never heard of this law before, how can you make a statement like that? When did He not use it? He spoke of a literal creation, a literal Adam and Eve, a literal Hell, and a literal whale swallowing Jonah.

For most of the church's history, allegorizing the bible was considered the proper way to interpret it.

I'm not talking church history, I'm talking Hermeneutics. Some churches still feel that way. Where the church disagrees with the Bible - the church is wrong.

You call it an "excellent" tool of interpretation. I see no reason for this. It strikes me as a downright silly method.

It's sillier not to use it, as I mentioned above. The human brain, for the most part, works on that method.

So far as I can see it is neither a Law nor a Theory. I suppose that "passing with flying colours when used" means "yielding results that agree with my literal interpretation."

Try this, Gluadys: try NOT using it, and see how much time you spend rolling your eyes.

Why should the practice of English writing be relevant to documents written in Hebrew?

If you bought a washer made in Mexico, wouldn't you want the manual in your own language?

Just because it was written in Hebrew, doesn't mean it stays in Hebrew --- especially if God has other plans for it.

 

[theFijian]

For example, if I say I "ran into" an old friend yesterday, it doesn't mean I hit him with my car, it means I met him face-to-face.

Well aint that funny. To read "I ran into my friend" literrally would not mean that you met him face-to-face. It would mean that you were moving swiftly on foot so that both feet were off the ground during each stride and you somehow ended up inside your friend. Funny thing language eh?

 

[Willtor]

Hi, Willtor

Indeed the context trumps everything in interpreting the Bible.

Your point about the Psalms is an excellent one. Be careful when getting your theology from the books of poetry exclusively.

Genesis is poetry. It doesn't come across into the English, but it's poetry. In and of itself, that doesn't mean it's not meant to be read literally. But I do think that it means we have to identify the literary form of a particular document before we can say "this ought to be interepreted in this way." Categorically saying that the Bible ought to be interpreted literally, through and through, seems a bit hasty.

The Law of First Mention is only a tool for Bible interpretation - and an excellent one at that. It does not mean to interpret that word exclusively throughout the whole Bible, but to use it in cases where you cannot determine the correct definition of a particular word or phrase.

There are times, however, when it is better to remain in uncertainty about a passage. Besides that, for some 3 centuries, the NT texts were individual documents. There was no "order" in which they could appear. Even if people treated them as Scripture, they certainly did not think that everybody used the same words in the same ways.

 

[Assyrian]

Hi, Assyrian

I hope my previous 2 post have answered your quesions. If not, I'll try my best to do so.

No I don't think it answers the question. The word day is mentioned 14 times between Gen 1:5 and Gen 2:4 only 3 of them, verses 14, 16 & 18 match the first used in Gen 1:5a the twelve hours of daylight. Gen 2:4 is completely different again and has been interpreted as a 24 hour day, 3 days, 6 days or the age of the cosmos. The one thing we do know is it doesn't fit the first mention, a 12 hour day in Gen 1:5a.

The meaning of the numbered days is not clear from context either, it depends on whether you take the evenings and morning literally in the first place. But there are no humans in the picture to give the context scale. Meanwhile, Moses can write a Psalm about the creation telling us God's days are as as thousand years, and use 'morning' and 'evening' quite figuratively in the process. Again the first mention doesn't help. One thing we know is that 'day' in Gen 1:5b, 8, 13 etc. is used differently from the first mention.

When Adam and Eve sinned, they brought entropy into the entire universe ---

For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.

Actually Romans 8 doesn't say anything about the travailing dating back to the fall or to Adam and Eve, just that it has been going on 'until now'. I don't know of anywhere in the bible which links the natural process of decay with the fall.

 

[AV1611VET]

Genesis is poetry.

Willtor, did you read my post on how the books of the Old Testament were laid out in perfect balance? I forget where I posted it now, but it's somewhere around here.

In all my years of studying and learning the Bible, with only one exception --- the Allegorists --- have I ever heard Genesis referred to as "poetry".

There are three types of Hebrew poetry, and frankly, Genesis doesn't even come close.

There are times, however, when it is better to remain in uncertainty about a passage. Besides that, for some 3 centuries, the NT texts were individual documents. There was no "order" in which they could appear.

That reminds me, I do plan to post how the books of the New Testament are laid out also --- but not right now.

Even if people treated them as Scripture, they certainly did not think that everybody used the same words in the same ways.

Let me make a point here:

I'm a Dispensationalist. That means that I believe that God divided time into 7 periods:

• Innocence --- from the Garden to the Expulsion
  Conscience --- ending at the Flood
  Human Government --- ending at the Tower of Babel
  Promise --- ending with the Egyptian Captivity
  Law --- ending with the Crucifixion
  Grace --- ending with the Tribulation
  Kingdom --- ending with the Great White Throne Judgement

Notice how each one of these dispensations ends with a judgement of God on someone?

If God expects us to obey Him, and live according to His rules, don't you think He'd make sure we have a copy of them?

Why would God tell us to "study to shew thyself approved", if we neither know, nor have access to the materials?

 

[gluadys]

When Adam and Eve sinned, they brought entropy into the entire universe ---

So, prior to the fall, there was no exchange of energy in creation?

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually Romans 8 doesn't say anything about the travailing dating back to the fall or to Adam and Eve, just that it has been going on 'until now'. I don't know of anywhere in the bible which links the natural process of decay with the fall.

Where, then, in Scripture do you think it occurred?

Since the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is implied in Genesis 2:1, something must have happened prior to Paul mentioning the 2nd Law in Romans 8. Romans 5 mentions "death" being introduced into the universe by Adam, and entropy (heat death) would certainly not be a violation of interpretation.

God cursed the ground in Genesis 3:17, and the ground contains all the elements that make up man's physical body.

Remember, too, that God calls His creation "very good" in Genesis 1:31. He certainly would not have called it that if entropy existed then.

Also, take into account that genetic entropy is the reason that we have plant and animal speciation now.

I find it very difficult to believe that entropy didn't exist in Adam's time --- or he wouldn't have died.

 

[steen]

Where science disagrees with the Bible, science is wrong.

A rather absolutist claim based, it seems, mainly on your insistence.

 

[AV1611VET]

So, prior to the fall, there was no exchange of energy in creation?

Well --- there's probably a gap in time of about a year in your question.

I don't know, but I'd say that there was no energy used in Creation, as energy itself was created.

I would also say that no energy was lost in an exchange of energy (as entropy dictates) prior to the Fall, which came about a year later.

In other words, Adam and Eve lived in a universe devoid of entropy for about 1 year.

 

[steen]

Willtor, did you read my post on how the books of the Old Testament were laid out in perfect balance? I forget where I posted it now, but it's somewhere around here.

It was in this tread. Now, what that seemed to indicate was that to interpret the Bible accurately, it would have to show mathematical symmetry. That didn't make any sense to me.

 

[gluadys]

Whether you're interpreting the Bible, the U.S. Constitution, the Rosetta Stone, or the newspaper (including the comics), use it. Otherwise, you'll spend an inordinate amount of time wondering what is being said.

I don’t find it necessary, nor do I spend much time wondering what is being said.

When did He [Jesus] not use it? He spoke of a literal creation, a literal Adam and Eve, a literal Hell, and a literal whale swallowing Jonah.

That is a conclusion you can only draw if you are pre-supposing that Jesus was speaking literally. IOW, you are engaging in circular reasoning. Nothing indicates that he was not speaking of a mythical creation, a mythical Adam, a mythical hell and a mythical story about Jonah being swallowed by a whale.

I'm not talking church history, I'm talking Hermeneutics. Some churches still feel that way. Where the church disagrees with the Bible - the church is wrong.

Historically the church valued a hermeneutics of allegory. You and your church value a hermeneutics of literalism. My church values a hermeneutics rooted in historical contextualism. There is not, and has never been a single hermeneutical approach. Some hermeneutics are more productive than others. Some are more faithful to the text than others. But there is no basis for saying that one and only one hermeneutic is correct all the time. Just because the church of other times and places uses different hermeneutical principles than you do does not place them in error.

It would also be helpful if you could distinguish between the bible and your interpretation of its text. Not every disagreement with your interpretation is ipso facto disagreement with the bible.

It's sillier not to use it, as I mentioned above. The human brain, for the most part, works on that method.

I suppose you have tested this thesis? I have seen many examples of the contrary. People tend to adopt the thinking method they have been educated in.

If you bought a washer made in Mexico, wouldn't you want the manual in your own language?

Just because it was written in Hebrew, doesn't mean it stays in Hebrew --- especially if God has other plans for it.

Irrelevant. For accurate interpretation, you still need to use the original text. In this instance (use of capitalization) you are suggesting that the English translation is more informative than the original Hebrew text. The same would apply to paragraphing, punctuation, and word divisions as well as none of these existed in the original Hebrew. Nor was the original Hebrew written with vowel pointing. And, of course, the original had no chapter and verse divisions.

All of these are helpful additions to the text, but I have not run across anyone who contends they are inspired additions. Is that what you are suggesting?

 

[AV1611VET]

A rather absolutist claim based, it seems, mainly on your insistence.

And if science disagreed with science, what would you call that?

 

[steen]

Since the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is implied in Genesis 2:1,

"implied"??? Ah, so you are telling us that we need to INTERPRET this in an otherwise literally read Bible? That is a serious inconsistency.

something must have happened prior to Paul mentioning the 2nd Law in Romans 8.

Could you point to where Paul mentions "The 2LoT"?

Romans 5 mentions "death" being introduced into the universe by Adam, and entropy (heat death) would certainly not be a violation of interpretation.

really? It an imposing of current interpretation of a past text. Funny, how you said this was wrong when Science does so, but apparently OK when you do so?

Sorry, but your entire argument comes across as a rationalization for allowing you to interpret while nobody else can?????

God cursed the ground in Genesis 3:17, and the ground contains all the elements that make up man's physical body.

A gigantic leap of rationalization and interpretation. What you suggest was not written. In a literal translation, your claim is bogus.

Remember, too, that God calls His creation "very good" in Genesis 1:31. He certainly would not have called it that if entropy existed then.

Why not? Entropy drives the universe. You are again interpreting and making leaps of rationalization. You are imposing your beliefs of the current world onto God's words.

 

[AV1611VET]

It was in this tread. Now, what that seemed to indicate was that to interpret the Bible accurately, it would have to show mathematical symmetry. That didn't make any sense to me.

Huh?