Nothing to do with my supposed presuppositions, but the simply fact you have so far failed to provide any basis for your claim that day is defined as evening plus morning equals one day. I don't know if you are trying to fool other people or are fooling yourself, but it's sad to watch.
That's straight out of the Lexicon and the clear statements from Genesis as translated into the English. The only source for your interpretation your using is you, the self referential, autonomous, autocratic, authority you would seem to regard as inerrant. It's is not only sad, it is tragic what you have done to your understanding of the Scriptures based on your contempt for Bible believing Christians.
You are still conflating Peter's witness of the transfiguration and his reference to the OT messianic prophecies. Try to get those to sorted out before you try using the passage in our discussions.
The passage is clear, concise and opposed to the idea that the OT is a book of fables or that they are of private interpretation. No matter how many times or decisively you are refuted you still think you are superior simply because your an evolutionist.
Peter, speaking of the Pauline epistles warns against those who would twist the meaning:
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:16)
Yes it is absurd. I would have thought by now you'd be able to distinguish between events being real and descriptions of events being literal or figurative. Christ really created the heavens and the earth, but that doesn't tell us whether the descriptions of his work of creation are real or figurative.
So Christ literally created the heavens and the earth but the Genesis account of creation is figurative? That's what happens when you take the Scriptures out of their proper context and try to make them mean whatever you want them to mean. Christ is Creator just as Christ is Savior, you don't have to be a walking lexicon to know that Christ is both literally. It would be the height of absurdity to suggest otherwise, much less argue the point.
Yes, as Athanasius said there were both worked by Christ. And it has nothing to do with whether the descriptions of the work are literal like the crucifixion narratives or figurative like the parable of the Good Shepherd. Like I said Mark if you want to use the phrase 'inextricably linked' it generally means you are confused about the subject and cannot clearly formulate a connection.
You don't get to call something figurative just because you don't believe it. Creation and salvation are inextricably linked and I don't need your permission to make that connection, Christian scholars always have and always will.
It is nothing to do with 'naturalistic assumptions' 'obsession', 'Darwinism', or 'natural science'. It is the simple fact you have not been able to support you claim that day is defined as evening plus morning equals one day.
It has everything to do with an obsession with your Darwinian naturalistic assumptions. You never discuss anything else, argue incessantly against Creation against bible believing Christians and reject any definition or interpretation that does not line up with your presupposition.
Classic Darwinian rhetoric.
The clear meaning of the text is
God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. (Gen. 1:8)
Day means day in Genesis 1, that's the clear meaning. You like to twist the wording around, make some twisted paraphrase into a strawman and pretend to be arguing something substantive.
I'm not talking about figurative language here, that is another discussion. I am asking you to support your claim that day is defined as evening plus morning equals one day.
No your not asking me anything, your repeating the question again and again, begging the question on your hands and knees. Once again you have resorted to redundant, fallacious rhetoric. Which means you have nothing else.
Accusing us of 'self satisfied superiority' and 'self defeating audacity' is not the same as refuting us.
That's what your doing, whether you represent a group or stand alone that is how you argue.
Are you saying you take the parable of the Good Shepherd literally? You think Jesus really did moonlight minding sheep and died twice once for us and once for a flock of sheep? And I have suggested you learn what the 'private interpretation' passage means if you want to keep using it.
The Good Shepherd isn't a parable, it's more of a euphemism and you know that. The argument is little more then childish mockery, nothing that can be taken seriously or mistaken for a substantive argument.
It's a man made post enlightenment hermeneutic not based on scripture which assumes you know what is a historical narrative in the first place.
Picking up some clutch phrases from Biologos I see. The hermeneutic principles I'm using are sound and they are not post enlightenment, it's what Hebrew and Christian scholars uniformly teach regarding Genesis. Day means day in Genesis 1. You can get an occasional figurative interpretation of the word, it's a minority opinion but never the less a substantive one when argued substantively.
Your trying to make it the only interpretation possible because you say so, that's not scholarship, that's having far too high an opinion of yourself.
When I adopted theistic evolution it was based on a literal Intermittent Day interpretation of Genesis. I have since changed to a figurative interpretation, not because of Darwin, or natural processes, but because it is simple a better reading of the text.
Then say that dude, your entitled to your opinion, it's even a reasonable interpretation when argued properly from positive proofs. Resorting to fallacious logic is always a mistake no matter what you think, believe or defend intellectually. Instead of arguing against Creation you should be arguing in favor of your interpretation, these ad hominem attacks are telling me you don't have the courage of your convictions. If your convinced of your interpretation explain it clearly, concisely and move on. What your doing in this thread has been an exercise in trolling tactics and it's a shame really, I would have enjoyed exploring the alternative reading had it been presented in a gentlemanly fashion.
Not all fear is fear of the Lord. Matt 8:26 And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?" Mat 25:25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.' I'm glad you included the second part of the verse, because the fear I was talking about was a fear of learning and wisdom.
I don't know what your saying here and I'm not entirely sure you do either.
Why don't you drop back and punt, I'm not trying to be factitious here, it's a serious word of advice. Taking day literally in Genesis 1 has been the majority view in the Church traditionally but alternative views do exist. There are also warnings from time to time against taking Genesis too literally. Not just in Christian scholarship but Francis Bacon warned strenuously against making selected texts from Scripture into a natural theology.
You could develop and intelligent and well organized defense of your interpretation and world view, I'm not patronizing you, I almost did it myself. I don't agree with it but there is a way of developing the arguments that doesn't twist the Scriptures around like metal in a train wreck.
I know you probably don't care but this is the last time I'm going to offer you this olive branch. You can let me help you or your not going to like where this goes. I've already made the connection between creation and salvation from classic Christian apologetics in a way you cannot defend against.
Do what you think is right but whether you believe it or not, you've lost this debate and there is a much better way.
Grace and peace,
Mark
