Exodus 31:17 "in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth"

[Job 33:6]

Your interpretation of Scriptures relating to Creationism are fairly consistent. But, the YEC interpretation of Genesis and all the other Scriptures regarding Creation are also very consistent without contradiction as well.

Thanks. And that's an important point. The text in reality is ambiguous. It doesn't say one way or another in its original Hebrew. But I wouldn't mistake that for a broader equality. Because we all know that the conversation continues beyond the Bible. But strictly speaking, based on the Bible itself, or how YECs read the Bible, YECism is factually opposed to the original context and background of Genesis, despite it being grammatically consistent.

 

[Vambram]

Thanks. And that's an important point. The text in reality is ambiguous. It doesn't say one way or another in its original Hebrew. But I wouldn't mistake that for a broader equality. Because we all know that the conversation continues beyond the Bible. But strictly speaking, based on the Bible itself, or how YECs read the Bible, YECism is factually opposed to the original context and background of Genesis, despite it being grammatically consistent.

I absolutely and strongly disagree with your opinion and characterization of YEC.
In the past couple of years, you and I have discussed Genesis and other related passages of the Bible. I am not going to change your mind and you are not going to change my mind, either.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

John of course is not Moses. Nor is John retelling Genesis. John lives centuries later and is speaking of creation through a different contextual background.

Regarding Genesis:
Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

The text doesn't say how long the earth was formless before God began to create it.

It's just a matter of if Genesis is describing creation through an ancient Israelite context, or through John's context of the Greco roman world.

I agree with you Job, and I think some of the conceptual problem many fellow Christians have with your analytic correction comes about because, in line with what they think should be the common reading [in English] of Genesis 1, they don't realize that people in the Bronze Age didn't think in terms of a possible Void, Vacuum or the Nihil as we might today; Something from Nothing didn't even appear to be a conceptual option for ancient thinkers prior to the 5th century B.C. For them, it was simply an explanatory problem of describing Order out of Disorder, or Power and Authority over Chaos and who it was they thought the Power and Authority resided with.

I'm not going to say more because I know you already know this, but others here might need to realize this historical point about Ancient Near Eastern thinking, so I thought I'd mention it.

Nothing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Job 33:6]

I agree with you Job, and I think some of the conceptual problem many fellow Christians have with your analytic correction comes about because, in line with what they think should be the common reading [in English] of Genesis 1, they don't realize that people in the Bronze Age didn't think in terms of a possible Void, Vacuum or the Nihil as we might today; Something from Nothing didn't even appear to be a conceptual option for ancient thinkers prior to the 5th century B.C. For them, it was a simply an explanatory problem of describing Order out of Disorder, or Power and Authority over Chaos and who it was they thought the Power and Authority resided with.

I'm not going to say more because I know you already know this, but others here might need to realize this historical point about Ancient Near Eastern thinking, so I thought I'd mention it.

Nothing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Precisely.

I think of the example, there is a person with a car and he's in the rain. And he writes on a piece of paper "oh wow! There is water in my trunk!"

And then 1,000 years later, someone finds that paper in a cave and reads it and thinks "wow! That was one lucky elephant!"

And when you point out contextual differences they'll just say "oh but God wrote it, so let's not complicate this and just accept the "plain reading" as it is.



Additional note:
Well God can't contradict himself!

Well that's true. But the old testament authors and new testament authors need not tell the exact same story. The old testament author can talk about an car trunk, the new testament author can reveal something truthful and meaningful about an elephant trunk while referencing the old testament car trunk, and both can indeed be equally true, just telling unique stories in their own contexts.

And this happens in scripture all the time. Mathew referenced Hosea regarding "out of Egypt" originally about Moses coming out of Egypt, and adjusted in reference to Jesus. Two completely different events. Two completely different concepts. Two completely different people. Yet both equally true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Precisely.

I think of the example, there is a person with a car and he's in the rain. And he writes on a piece of paper "oh wow! There is water in my trunk!"

And then 1,000 years later, someone finds that paper in a cave and reads it and thinks "wow! That was one lucky elephant!"

And when you point out contextual differences they'll just say "oh but God wrote it, so let's not complicate this and just accept the "plain reading" as it is.

The further philosophical and linguistic complication in this is that if there is truly a "plain reading," it's not going to be in English. And from what I understand about Classical Hebrew (and that's not even touching upon any possible Paleo-Hebrew that might have existed), the reading of Genesis 1:1-5 isn't so plain and simple. Even if we attempt to approach the Hebrew reading we think we have in a 'simple' way, we'd get slightly different readings and views by different Jewish readers and their Rabbis. Here's but one example of what you and I are already aware of....

The Bible in Hebrew w/Ilan

 

[Job 33:6]

A good interview that covers this topic:

 

[Psalm 27]

And the 7th yom, the Sabbath yom, is a 24-hour day - it does not last for thousands of years. So it makes no sense, in Gen 1 or Exodus 20, to understand the word as meaning thousands of years. So ISTM that all those days in Gen 1 are to be understood as normal familiar days of 24 hours. Why would they be understood in any other way by the original authors or by their hearers and readers ?

Amen
"The Hebrew word "yom," meaning "day," appears approximately 2,300 times in the Old Testament. It is used to refer to a 24-hour period".
If 'yom' is one 24 hour day every other instance, why would it be any different in Genesis?

 

[Psalm 27]

expand...

"The Hebrew word "yom," meaning "day," appears approximately 2,300 times in the Old Testament. It is used to refer to a 24-hour period".
If 'yom' is one 24 hour day every other instance, why would it be any different in Genesis?

 

[Psalm 27]

expand...

Amen
"The Hebrew word "yom," meaning "day," appears approximately 2,300 times in the Old Testament. It is used to refer to a 24-hour period".
If 'yom' is one 24 hour day every other instance, why would it be any different in Genesis?

 

[stevevw]

I don't think it matters if there was humans walking the earth long ago beyond the 6 literal days. I think this is what can help understand the verse and not trying to decide an entire meaning on one words definition.

This seems to happen a lot including in the Greek and new testament where the entire interpretation comes down to a word meaning. I think if we expand the criteria and include anthroplogy, archeology, culture, sociology, we will understand better what is going on.

For one regardless of the word meanings it is the context for which those words were written in. The worldview of those people who did not see the world as we do today. So their use of particular words is premised on their worldview and their worldview was completely different to ours today.