Genesis

[jds1977]

James Barr absolutely does NOT support any kind of rule that shows that YOM means 24-hour period when connected with a particular type of number etc...

Read the quote and tell me exactly how he is not in agreement w/ the writer's intent to portray a literal 6 day cration.

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.3​

Exd 18:13 "And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: and the people stood by Moses from the morning unto the evening."... has also not the word "day" in it but is clearly understood as the passing by of a human day because of the use of the prepositions "from" and "unto" in the context with human beings.

Psalm 90 and Daniel 8 shows how "evening" and "morning" refers to something that is completely different from "sunset" and "sunrise".

Notice, the argument is about the word "yom"... used in conjunction w/ "evening" and "morning"...not evening and morning alone.

Again, show me where "there was evening and there was morning" appears elsewhere in scripture to identify the passing by of a normal day.

again...you've missed the point.

Again, explain me why you think that the days of genesis are human time and not gods time. Every other occurences of "day" and "evening" or "morning" involves human activity.
In Genesis 1 only God is acting.

Ok...first of all, day six does involve human activity. Secondly, don't you think He would have let us know if it was longer like 1,000,000 years? He could have used terms like He did w/ Abraham in Gen 22:17..."as stars of the heaven" and "sand which is upon the sea shore". How do you explain Exodus 20:11? Should we work for 6,000,000 years and rest for the 7th million?

 

[Deamiter]

Read the quote and tell me exactly how he is not in agreement w/ the writer's intent to portray a literal 6 day cration.

Yes. Barr believes that the writer intended to portray a 6-day creation. That has nothing to do with the point you were responding to with this quote:

This rule about Yom and ordinal numbers is utterly fabricated anyway. The rule didn't exist until geologists discovered evidence for old age and YEC scholars needed to make up a rule to show that Yom couldn't mean age. You won't find Hebrew scholars who were not YEC to begin with that have recorded or supported such a rule in the Hebrew language. To use a rule that was designed to support YEC (not simply describe Hebrew) and use the rule as evidence for YEC is highly circular logic!

Barr is NOT in agreement that there is a rule in Hebrew anything similar to "Yom + ordinal number is always a literal 24-hour day."

That's what you quoted him in response to remember? I said that this rule is entirely made up by YECists and wasn't even suggested until YECists needed such a rule to "prove" to themselves that Genesis could only be read one way. Barr agrees with you about the intent of the author but does NOT support the existance of any rule about Yom+numbers=24-hours.

Seriously -- go back and look at what you were responding to. I never remotely claimed that no atheist thinks Genesis is literal. I claimed that the Yom+number argument is totally made up to which you responded with an atheist who thinks Genesis was intended literally (but who doesn't in the least accept any such rule in the Hebrew language).

My original point stands.

 

[vossler]

A 'day' is how long it takes the Sun to appear to orbit the planet. Go stand on a different celestial body and the day certainly won't be 24 hours long.

In other words it can be as long as you want it to be, or better yet as long as you need it to be.

 

[shernren]

Read the quote and tell me exactly how he is not in agreement w/ the writer's intent to portray a literal 6 day cration.

You should read the whole letter, they have it here:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/barrlett.html

... Barr concedes that "it's really not so much a matter of technical linguistic competence", but "of appreciation of the sort of text that Genesis is". This last qualification specifically defeats the Young-Earth Creationist argument that Barr was only offering a neutral, expert linguistic analysis of what the Hebrew words mean. The fact is that Barr was offering his private interpretation based on his prior assumption of what he thinks "the sort of text that Genesis is"!

 

[Brennan]

A 'day' is how long it takes the Sun to appear to orbit the planet.

so another geocentric here?

sounds a bit like language of appearances. wouldn't time to rotate on planetary axis be sufficient?

Nope, think about how long a 'day' is nearer the poles. Hardly Geocentrism. tut tut.

 

[Assyrian]

How does that work before there is a sun in the sky?

 

[pgp_protector]

How does that work before there is a sun in the sky?

I've asked that a few times.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Nope, think about how long a 'day' is nearer the poles. Hardly Geocentrism. tut tut.

the length of a solar day is relatively constant see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day. but the length of daylight is variable, depends on tilt of the earth's axis, rotation around the sun, as well as latitude.

 

[shernren]

How does that work before there is a sun in the sky?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness.
God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night."
And the Fundamentalist said, "Let them both last twelve hours, or the rest of the Bible will be false!"
And there was evening, and there was morning--the first day.
(Genesis 1:1-5, New Creationist Version)

 

[jds1977]

Deamiter, I was reviewing your former post to get a better clarity of what was being debated. I understand your point about James Barr not referring to yom. But I did have some questions about some things in your post.

Quote:
Four times in the Old Testament Yom is translated "year." In I Kings 1:1, "David was old and stricken in years..." In 2 Chronicles 21:19, "after the end of two years" and in the very next verse "Thirty and two years old." Finally, in Amos 4:4, "...and your tithes after three years." In each case, Yom represents years, not days.

It's common knowledge that yom has several meanings...but the context defines it. 1Kings 1 is not hard to understand. 2 Chron. 22:19 is also not hard to figure out...however, in the next verse, yom is not used. In Amos, the KJV and the NIV say year while the NAS and the RSV and the LXX (English translation) says day. So...I'm not sure who's right on that one.

The rule didn't exist until geologists discovered evidence for old age and YEC scholars needed to make up a rule to show that Yom couldn't mean age.

I highly disagree with this statement. The YEC's did not have to "make up" a rule...it was a common understanding that the days in Gen. 1 were literal days. There's no rule...it's just common sense reading. Even Jesus supported this view in Mark 10:6..."But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female." was man created at the beginning or billions of years later? Should we work for 6 billion years and rest for 1 billion? (Ex. 20:9-11) Did it rain for forty billion years? (Gen. 7:12, 17) Did Moses go without food and water for 40 billion years? (Ex. 34:28) Was Moses before the Lord for another 40 million or billion? (Deut. 9:25)
Maybe someone can explain where we get a 7-day week. Or, should it actually be 7000 yrs? The Scriptures are very clear that Gen 1 is 7 days. The only reason evolutionists try to interpret it any different is to try and mold the bible to fit their own outside influences. Why can't we let the bible speak for itself? The problem arises when you take it literally, then someone is wrong...either the outside influences or the bible is wrong. So, we try and compromise and work our influences into God's Word and claim it's not literal. Then, we jeopardize all of the rest of God's Word and the gospel itself. Was Jonah in the fish's belly for 3000 years? Or what about the gourd that God prepared him...did it take 1000 yrs. to grow? I take the stand w/ Moses, the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and the early church fathers, that God created the heavens the earth the sea and all that in them is, in six days and rested the 7th. Amen..hallelujah, yeehaw...ok...I'm done lol

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The YEC's did not have to "make up" a rule...it was a common understanding that the days in Gen. 1 were literal days. There's no rule...it's just common sense reading.

ok. for the sake of the point, i'll concede that Moses or whoever wrote Gen 1, thought that the days were 24hr normal days he observed. I'll even concede that he thought that creation was 4K years before he was born, and that God created the world in 7 days.

so what?
why am i bound to what this author thought about his natural world? he is an ancient Israelite, he thought slavery was acceptable, that women where inferior and that the starts were rather close to him. so what? where am i told in Scripture that his idea is being taught as binding on all subsequent readers?

you need to make this distinction in the things that God is using to teach us, and the actually truths that He is binding us to believe and understand. They are not the same things. I do not have to believe the cultural and societal elements that created ancient Hebrew society. This is the fundamental 19thC missionary gross misunderstanding that to be a Christian was to be European or American in cultural distinctives, so the Hawaiians wrote muu-muus (actually the missionaries pretty much forced everyone to wear clothes, including suits and ties to church etc, all culturally artifacts).

this is the same error. you are trying to force Christians to believe a proto-scientific worldview when that worldview is not what God is teaching in Scripture, it is an incidental element that is required in order to transmit the truth to us. but it is not being taught as the thing to be believed.

The big issue in Gen 1 is really the Sabbath. is the Sabbath a creation ordinance? or is it a culturally conditioned artifact that is not binding on all Christians and Jews?
ask Sabbatarians, ask SDA, ask Messanic Jews etc.

 

[vossler]

ok. for the sake of the point, i'll concede that Moses or whoever wrote Gen 1, thought that the days were 24hr normal days he observed. I'll even concede that he thought that creation was 4K years before he was born, and that God created the world in 7 days.

First of all I'd like to commend you here that you do recognize this. That in and of itself is quite remarkable.

why am i bound to what this author thought about his natural world? he is an ancient Israelite, he thought slavery was acceptable, that women where inferior and that the starts were rather close to him. so what? where am i told in Scripture that his idea is being taught as binding on all subsequent readers?

I think it's here where the crux of our differences arise. You see Moses as a good man who wrote some things that were wrong and some that were right. I see everything he and all the authors of the Bible said to be the truth. I don't have the authority to pick and choose what I wish to believe and obey because it is all truth and worthy of my obedience.

you need to make this distinction in the things that God is using to teach us, and the actually truths that He is binding us to believe and understand. They are not the same things.

It is with this line of thinking you become your own god.

this is the same error. you are trying to force Christians to believe a proto-scientific worldview when that worldview is not what God is teaching in Scripture, it is an incidental element that is required in order to transmit the truth to us. but it is not being taught as the thing to be believed.

How do you know what worldview God is teaching in Scripture when Scripture says only what you choose for it to say?

 

[gluadys]

Maybe someone can explain where we get a 7-day week. Or, should it actually be 7000 yrs? The Scriptures are very clear that Gen 1 is 7 days.

We misunderstand the notion of Sabbath if we think only in terms of days. The principle of Sabbath applies to cycles of 7 whatever the length of time.

The Sabbath ordinance did not only include cessation from work every seventh day. It also included cessation from work every seventh year together with cancellation of debt and freeing of slaves (Deuteronomy 15). And after seven cycles of seven years came the great Sabbath or Jubilee year, which included all the above plus the redistribution of land to its original owners of 50 years ago. (Leviticus 25)

To each cycle its proper observance. So there is nothing inconsistent in having a Sabbath observance every seven days, years or 7 x 7 years in commemoration of seven "days" of creation which may have been millions of years apiece. Just as there is nothing inconsistent in having an annual remembrance of an Exodus which in total took 40 years. And look at the celebration of Holy Communion. Depending on denomination and local practice we remember one event yearly, monthly, weekly or daily.

How frequently and how long we celebrate an event need have no direct relationship to how long the event took in the first place.

 

[jds1977]

he thought slavery was acceptable,

No...Not in the sense that we know slavery today. He liberated his Hebrew people from slavery.
But...to answer your question of "so what?"...There's a deeper problem than what you see going on in the world today. If satan can get people to doubt the Word of God, then he can get people to doubt that there is a God and therefore, fool many straight to hell. He started questioning the words of God in Eden and he hasn't stopped. His ultimate goal is to discredit God and destroy us. My main reason for acknowledging the writings of Moses as being true is John 5:47, "But if you believe not his writings, how you can believe my words?" It is satan's goal to destroy the foundation of the gospel...man...he sinned...he was cursed along w/ all creation...he is in need of a redeemer...Christ redeemed us by His death, burial and resurrection. read this quote from athiest Richard G. Bozarth in an article entitled "the Meaning of Evolution" from American Athiest (Feb. 1978):
It becomes clear now that the whole justification of Jesus' life and death is predicated on the existence of Adam and the forbidden fruit he and Eve ate. Without the original sin, who needs to be redeemed? Without Adam's fall into a life of constant sin terminated by death, what purpose is there to christianity? None...evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. It takes away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then christianity is nothing!
To me, that's pretty scarey. But, I have enjoyed the debate and all the articles and material that has been presented. It has really helped me to study in detail and I thank all of the TE's for your input. God bless.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

You see Moses as a good man who wrote some things that were wrong and some that were right.

that is simply not true. i assent fully to the principle of the plenary inspiration of Scripture, i've been through the issue rather intensively and think i understand the principles. Moses was inspired by God to write the Torah. But what does that mean? did God correct his culture's misunderstanding of the universe? no. God used it, in an common sense, naive observer's POV. but God is not teaching this POV as binding on all subsequent readers. I don't have to believe that the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west as a physical scientific fact, it doesn't, it appears to me, as it appeared to Moses to be this way. It is however not true. God didn't see fit to correct all kinds of this issues in Scripture. Slavery is my long term issue that God did not, with one verse, like with polygamy or divorce clear away. i don't know why? i'm only reading and struggling to understand the text.

I don't have the authority to pick and choose what I wish to believe and obey because it is all truth and worthy of my obedience.
if it is true that God is using some ideas and not teaching them as binding then for you to misinterpret them as commands and falsely bind men's consciences to your misinterpretation is not God's intention. Look at all the issues with the Sabbath, it is binding, what day, what can you do etc? it is obvious that people are not interpreting it all as binding as it is simply written.

It is with this line of thinking you become your own god.
to read Scripture, to get it's meaning into our heads REQUIRES interpretation, is interpreting Scripture making yourself a god? nonsense.

How do you know what worldview God is teaching in Scripture when Scripture says only what you choose for it to say?
you have to read and see what it says, how all Scripture fits together etc.

First of all I'd like to commend you here that you do recognize this. That in and of itself is quite remarkable
actually i've never defended anything but framework interpretation which says that they are 24 hour normal days, that the Sabbath structure is crucial and that Moses believed that Creation happened a few thousand years before his time and that the Creation week was a description of what really happened. i've never defended anything but these ideas.

 

[vossler]

You see Moses as a good man who wrote some things that were wrong and some that were right.

that is simply not true. i assent fully to the principle of the plenary inspiration of Scripture, i've been through the issue rather intensively and think i understand the principles. Moses was inspired by God to write the Torah. But what does that mean? did God correct his culture's misunderstanding of the universe? no. God used it, in an common sense, naive observer's POV. but God is not teaching this POV as binding on all subsequent readers. I don't have to believe that the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west as a physical scientific fact, it doesn't, it appears to me, as it appeared to Moses to be this way. It is however not true. God didn't see fit to correct all kinds of this issues in Scripture. Slavery is my long term issue that God did not, with one verse, like with polygamy or divorce clear away. i don't know why? i'm only reading and struggling to understand the text.

What elements are binding? Those we determine to be true through our own personal study, right? I believe it should be all of the text.

If you asked 10 people on the street whether the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west I believe you would find 10 people who agree with that assertion. Is it scientifically true, no, but that doesn't make it any less true. If it needed correction, we would have long since corrected that mistake. We're all, in our own separate ways, struggling to understand the text; I have my own issues too. The thing is though, I won't change what the text says in order for it to comply with my findings, my findings have to comply with the text. That's where, I believe, TEs and YECs are miles apart.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What elements are binding? Those we determine to be true through our own personal study, right? I believe it should be all of the text.

it's a good question, i don't have a complete answer by any means. my primary allegiance is to a specific interpretive community. I consciously try to follow that community's interpretation and systematic theology when i read the Scriptures so it is not a strictly personal determination but rather deep effected by what has been taught before. it is trying to strive for the intersubjectivity that i so much admire in science, but it falls well short of the unity of science, unfortunately.

We're all, in our own separate ways, struggling to understand the text; I have my own issues too. The thing is though, I won't change what the text says in order for it to comply with my findings, my findings have to comply with the text. That's where, I believe, TEs and YECs are miles apart.

i don't see anyone changing the text, the issue is one of competing interpretations and underlying hermeneutical principles, it is not a textual issue/level but fundamentally a meaning/exegetical/interpretation level. that is why i constantly chant: text is not the same thing as interpretation here. for many conservatives don't get this major point because their common sense literal hermeneutic seems so natural that they are unaware that these are rosey colored glasses, just like everyone else is wearing while reading the text, just a different color.

 

[Mallon]

Is it scientifically true, no, but that doesn't make it any less true.

With this statement, you have essentially summarized the feelings of many TEs with respect to the Scriptures. You have admitted that scientific accuracy and truth do no necessarily go hand-in-hand.

 

[vossler]

What elements are binding? Those we determine to be true through our own personal study, right? I believe it should be all of the text.

it's a good question, i don't have a complete answer by any means. my primary allegiance is to a specific interpretive community. I consciously try to follow that community's interpretation and systematic theology when i read the Scriptures so it is not a strictly personal determination but rather deep effected by what has been taught before. it is trying to strive for the intersubjectivity that i so much admire in science, but it falls well short of the unity of science, unfortunately.

That's an interesting approach, following an interpretive community. It wasn't until I got here that I even knew there was a community that called themselves YEC. Even though I identify myself today as one, I don't follow any sort of allegiance to some sort of prescribed way of thinking. My allegiance is to the Word of God and if ideas are compatible to the Bible I'm open to them, if they're not then I dismiss them. The primary thing though is that the Bible governs my thinking, not ideas or text from outside of Scripture.

i don't see anyone changing the text, the issue is one of competing interpretations and underlying hermeneutical principles, it is not a textual issue/level but fundamentally a meaning/exegetical/interpretation level. that is why i constantly chant: text is not the same thing as interpretation here. for many conservatives don't get this major point because their common sense literal hermeneutic seems so natural that they are unaware that these are rosey colored glasses, just like everyone else is wearing while reading the text, just a different color.

Overall what you're saying here sounds good, the thing is its in the details that one gets to see exactly how it gets implemented. Without diverting this discussion and expanding it I will just say, plenty of people come here and change the text. You have stated that you believe it was clear that Moses was speaking of 6 24 hour days, but there are lots of folks here that would disagree with that 'interpretation.' That's just one example, there are many more just like it. If we can't get a certain basic universal meaning from Scripture, then everything is open to individual personal interpretation, one that allows such a wide variety of views that its impact becomes diluted and even impotent.

 

[vossler]

With this statement, you have essentially summarized the feelings of many TEs with respect to the Scriptures. You have admitted that scientific accuracy and truth do not necessarily go hand-in-hand.

I like and appreciate those rare occasions when we can agree.