How would you say it?

[Micaiah]

My evidence: - There are no hints in the Scriptures that any of its authors understood Genesis as anything but real events about real people. There are many examples of authors that do refer to these events and people as real. The early fathers generally accepted this interpretations.

 

[JAL]

That IS the meat of your argument. That a mythological or allegorical or otherwise figurative interpretation of what you interpret as history (and note, that is ALSO an interpretation) is equivalent to discarding, demoting, demeaning, ignoring, "picking and choosing" scripture. That it is a tactic to render the scripture without force or authority, to weaken it to the point that it can be safely dropped out of sight. That is the whole foundation of the literalists' attack on non-literal interpretations of what they deem to be history.

And it is simply not true. Perhaps it is your position that only objective history can carry the authoritative voice of God. But it is not my position. So when you use words like "discard", "demote" etc. you are mis-representing my beliefs on this matter.

Clearly this semantic issue is not the meat of my argument, gluadys. If you continue to write this way, I will eventually lose my current respect for you. Why? Because I myself don’t stoop to debates over semantics. I stick to REASONING. If you’re going to make such a big issue of my choice of words, fine, strike the words “discard” and “demote” from my statements. THE FACT THAT THE REAL ARGUMENTS STILL REMAIN PROVES THAT YOUR SEMANTIC COMPLAINT WAS NEVER THE CRUX. Here are my two main arguments once again (“sigh”). (1) The first challenge is to show how it is hermeneutically consistent to categorize 8 invisible elements of Scripture as literal realities (such as angels) while classifying a visible element (men such as Adam and Eve) as myth. In private messages between Vance and me, every time I so much as mentioned Adam and Eve he responded with long essays aimed at mythologizing them. Recently it became apparent to me that he has not yet shown himself hermeneutically consistent in this conclusion. (2) There are three testaments, namely the Old Testament, the New Testament, and all of Nature. Many YECists say that Nature could be a metaphor for the Ancient of Days. This is called “the appearance of age” argument. Theistic evolutionists object that such a metaphor, if actual, has distorted history in the eyes of many - yet postulate a metaphorical Genesis which, if actual, has distorted history in the eyes of many. This is trying to have one’s cake and eat it too.


As I see it, I’ve already won this debate, because this is not merely an issue of “who’s right.” The question was whether Vance’s position is as “screamingly factual” as he would like us to think. If it were, Vance would have responded to at least the 1st argument in the last five days. Instead I have to keep BEGGING both you and Vance to respond. After five days, I’m about worn out.

The contradictions between the two creation stories are endemic to the text, not a figment of fallible interpretation.

Cmon, Glaudy’s. I explicitly provided a refutation of these alleged contradictions by referring you here:
See the posts # 87-88, 90-94, and 102 on the following thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t1140439-how-do-you-explain-the-miracles-and.html&page=2
Instead of evaluating my reasoning, you simply re-charge Genesis with contradictions. On this forum, Gluadys, do you give REASONS for your beliefs, or merely assert your opinions? Why do I have to keep begging you to give reasons? Is it because you don’t have any? What else am I supposed to conclude? You don’t seem to leave me much choice. I have the same complaint with your next statement:

Genesis can be reconciled with science if it is not interpreted literally. It is only the literal interpretation of the text that contradicts science. Science has shown us that creation did not occur in only 6 days...Hence, any reconciliation of science with Genesis must rely to some extent on non-literal interpretation.

I have responded to this charge (a) on this thread (b) on the thread referenced above and (c) on numerous threads that you attended. Yet here again you deny my conclusion without examining my reasoning. Briefly, here’s my argument yet again (“sigh”). As far as I can see (correct me if I’m wrong), no reputable scientist would limit the literal meaning of “day” to 24 hours because suns and planets can vary in size. For instance Webster's includes the following possible definitions of "day."
1 a : the time of light between one night and the next b : [size=-1]DAYLIGHT [/size]1, 2
2 : the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis
Genesis 1:5 uses definition #1 for day, namely a daylight/morning followed by an evening/darkness. Since our sun did not exist until day 4 of Genesis, there is no 24-hour limitation. The question is, what sun provided the six days? And was it a 24-hour sun? According to 2Cor 4:4-6 (cf. Rev 1:16; etc), the Sun of Genesis 1:3 was God’s glory shining in Christ’s face (many Bible margins connect 2Cor 4-6 DIRECTLY to Gen 1:3). His physical Light illuminated the whole galaxy, provided photosynthesis to the plants until our sun was in place on the fourth galactic day, and He suspended this galactic Light six times (whenever He wanted) to create the six galactic nights. (These galactic days have NOTHING to do with the earth’s local 24-hour days and nights). How much time transpired during the six days? Genesis doesn’t say. Assuming the geologic column trustworthy, we could conclude 4 billion years. And Today is still God’s rest/seventh day (as Hebrews 4 suggests). You asserted that Genesis contradicts science. I asked you to show me why. Instead of giving me a real reason, you respond with this 24-hour PRATT? Read my lips please. A LITERAL READING OF GENESIS DOES NOT REQUIRE 24 HOUR DAYS. k?

In the next quote, you do the same thing yet again! You assert your opinion on soul without addressing my REASON given on this thread for rejecting such traditional theories – namely the issue of original sin. In fact, I specifically sent you by private message, quite some time ago, a reference to my list of some 25 logical arguments for materialism. Not ONE of my 25 reasons is addressed in your quote below. Is anyone else seeing a pattern here, or is it just me? This is your quote:

However, I would still disagree with both Tertullian and yourself. My personal approach to the nature of the soul is derived from Gen. 2:7. As the creation of Adam is described here, "soul" is not to be identified as either physical or non-physical, but as the union of both. The "breath of life" is not the soul, but that which transforms the body in such as way that it becomes a living soul. The operative word is "become". Hence, it is not proper (though common) to speak of "having" a soul, but rather of "being" a soul. Just as it is not really proper (though common) to speak of "having" a body, but of "being" a body. And likewise of "being" a spirit/breath. We are souls because we are spirit-animated bodies.

Let’s just discuss ONE of my 25 arguments for materialism, namely the issue of original sin. Donald Bloesch admits that immaterialism CANNOT explain original sin (he even admits that the body cannot, logically, be the cause of corruption), and Millard J. Erickson resorts to materialism. The reason is simple. If we are not Adam, we didn’t sin, and hence our souls should not be tainted. Scripture asserts that (1) all have sinned (2) all are corrupt and (3) and all need a savior. Did all the angels sin? No. If all men still had FULL freedom of choice, some would NOT sin. Yet they all do, wherefore they MUST be born sin-tainted, as Scripture asserts. How are they tainted? Did God taint them? And why is it, as Vance admitted, that Genesis refers to Adam as “all mankind”? How is it that all sinned in his act (Rom 5)? Donald Bloesch, Berkouwer, John Murray, Charles Ryrie, the Catholic Catechism, and others have admitted that the greatest minds of Christianity have wrestled with this Problem of Evil for 2000 years without success. My particular materialistic model appears to be the ONLY effective solution proposed in 2000 years!

Let’s suppose we deny the traditional doctrine of original sin. Let’s be Pelagians where children are born innocent. Abortion would be a favor! Why let them run the risk of sinning themselves into hell? And if children are innocent, why do so many have to suffer starvation, both in the womb and in adolescence?

To say Genesis 1-2 "was plainly intended as history" is itself a subjective interpretation and has no more justification than to say it "was plainly intended to be mythological"

If that’s the case, then a library that classifies some books as history and others as fable is arbitrary. You wouldn’t even know which section to begin looking for a desired book. When Christianity classified the first 17 books of Scripture as HISTORY (versus poetry), it was not acting arbitrarily. Moreover, you cannot treat the Bible “just like any other book.” If we start with the assumption that the Bible alone is inspired (feel free to contest that on other threads), it is already in a special category. Hence we will need prima facie evidence for mythologizing a biblical text – and not just evidence, but evidence shown to be HERMENEUTICALLY CONSISTENT.

Red herring.

No, it was not a red herring – it was neither a diversion nor a mere lampooning. To see why, let’s look at where Vance is taking us. To mythologize Genesis, he has to cast doubt on major NT passages traditionally presumed literal, for instance Paul’s discussion of Christ’s atonement in Romans 5. In a private message to me, Vance commented on Romans 5 that it’s okay if Paul ERRED in regard to the First Adam (perhaps Paul erred in regard to the Second Adam too?). This is what Vance wrote privately to me:

Paul was just a man. He was among the greatest of men, it is true, but his own letters show that he was sometimes petty, boastful, proud and lost his temper. He was also a brilliant thinker and a great man of God. As a great admirer of Paul, it does not disturb me at all if Paul DID consider something literal that was actually figurative, symbolic or typological.

So Scripture need not be inerrant? Look, if you’re going to begin mythologizing the Bible, you need to show yourself hermeneutically consistent. Otherwise we are all justified in classifying the whole bible as myth merely because we like such a notion. Hardly a red herring, in my opinion. Vance claims to be advancing the gospel but proposes a hermeneutic potentially useful for allegorizing the Second Adam? In that case, maybe He was just a man, and not literally God? Maybe the atonement is just a metaphor for man’s sinfulness?

The only semblance of an argument that I could find in your post was this:

[Science] has shown us that neither chronology in Genesis reflects the actual order of the appearance of living species on earth.

Ok, fine. I have asked for this information again and again, on thread after thread. Show me how the chronology of Genesis 1 contradicts the fossil record. I'm not a scientist, so if you don't provide this information, I'm not likely to get it. (And please don't speak of the chronology of Genesis 2 - it doesn't have one, as I explained in the thread/link highlighted above).

 

[Micaiah]

So Scripture need not be inerrant? Look, if you’re going to begin mythologizing the Bible, you need to show yourself hermeneutically consistent.

I'm going to part company with you on this one JAL. You said:

And was it a 24-hour sun? According to 2Cor 4:4-6 (cf. Rev 1:16; etc), the Sun of Genesis 1:3 was God’s glory shining in Christ’s face (many Bible margins connect 2Cor 4-6 DIRECTLY to Gen 1:3). His physical Light illuminated the whole galaxy, provided photosynthesis to the plants until our sun was in place on the fourth galactic day, and He suspended this galactic Light six times (whenever He wanted) to create the six galactic nights. (These galactic days have NOTHING to do with the earth’s local 24-hour days and nights). How much time transpired during the six days? Genesis doesn’t say. Assuming the geologic column trustworthy, we could conclude 4 billion years.

I do not think you are being consistent. God is said to have created heaven and earth in six days in Exedus 20:8. I see no reason to assume that the time interval was different for the days before the sun was present. You have noted a possible source of light. The old Jewish scholars recognised this dilemma, but spoke of a day as one rotation of the earth. The same word is used for day on each of the days of chapter 1, and and the same formula is used at the end of each day, indicating there was an evening and morning.

I am prepared to accept by faith that the world is around 6000 years ago, though many would dispute this. There are an increasing number of explanations, or theories if you like, on how the geological column was formed consistent with this time frame.

To my mind, light from the stars is the best evidence for an old earth. You measure the distance from earth to a star, and work out how old the universe is knowing the speed of light. It is much more than 6000 years old on this basis. This assumes light was travelling to earth after the stars were in position. We don't really know enough about the early creation to be sure these assumtions are correct. We know that time can be distorted, and it seems likely this could occur during the creations of the heavens. There have been some attempts at explaining the dilemma with reference to relativity.

 

[JAL]

I do not think you are being consistent. God is said to have created heaven and earth in six days in Exedus 20:8. I see no reason to assume that the time interval was different for the days before the sun was present. You have noted a possible source of light. The old Jewish scholars recognised this dilemma, but spoke of a day as one rotation of the earth. The same word is used for day on each of the days of chapter 1, and and the same formula is used at the end of each day, indicating there was an evening and morning.

Yes, in Exodus 20:8, God said He created the earth in six days. That's not the question, is it? The question is, what does "day" mean? Genesis defines day as a morning/daylight followed by an evening/darkness. I quoted Webster's Dictionary stating the same thing. WHOSE definition of day should I accept - yours? Or the Bible's? You argue that the same Hebrew word is used. Right - because the definition of day was STILL THE SAME (morning and evening). Show me where I have departed from the definition "morning and evening" or "daylight and darkness." You can't, because I haven't. If you believe in six 24 hour days, fine. But you haven't shown how my view is unbiblical. If a day can only be 24 hours, then other planets/suns CANNOT experience days and nights. In my opinion such a limitation is too stringent.

I could postulate here several arguments against 24 hour days. I will just leave you with one. In Genesis 2, Moses subsumes the entire creation period under the term "day" - no longer six days? This is is the sort of problem that arises if we are too strict in our definitions. Literalism doesn't require such absolute stringency. Like I said, you are entitled to your opinion. But I am also entitled to mine until you can prove mine unbiblical.

 

[gluadys]

In order to assist myself in keeping the many issues covered in some logical form, I am dividing my response into five posts.

#1 Semantics?
#2 Historico-critical analysis of biblical text
#3 JAL's REAL arguments re literal "days" of creation
#4 Soul and original sin
#5 Comparative chronologies of creation, including that of modern science


#1 Semantics?

Clearly this semantic issue is not the meat of my argument, gluadys. If you continue to write this way, I will eventually lose my current respect for you. Why? Because I myself don’t stoop to debates over semantics.

Sorry, but words do have meanings, sometimes several of them, and without definition of terms debates do slide into meaningless semantics. To avoid that, it is necessary to define terms.

Defining terms is what avoids meaningless semantic arguments. It doesn't create them

Now when the definition of a term seems obvious, I take it the writer intends the obvious meaning. You used the terms "discard" and "demote" with what seemed an obvious meaning. But you object to my focusing on those words as "semantic".

What do you mean by this? That you were assigning a different meaning to the terms, but didn't tell us what it was? That you really meant to say something quite different?

We can clear up this "semantic" difference quite quickly if you tell us what you really meant to say.

I stick to REASONING. If you’re going to make such a big issue of my choice of words, fine, strike the words “discard” and “demote” from my statements.

So, are you now retracting them? If you give me permission to strike them, what would you accept to replace them? What words would still convey your meaning without distortion?

Or is it a fact that you really did mean what you said?

To mythologize Genesis, he has to cast doubt on major NT passages traditionally presumed literal,

There you go again. You equate a non-literal interpretation with "casting doubt" on the text. Just like "discard" and "demote". JAL, this is too consistent to be dismissed as semantics.

I think you really mean what you say. In your perspective, a non-literal interpretation of what you have been taught is history is in fact equivalent to discarding, demoting and casting doubt on the very truth of scripture.

If this were merely semantics, you should be able to re-phrase all these statements without the use of these negative words or any similarly negative term. I don't think that is possible. So, it is not semantics. It is your actual message.

Paul was just a man. He was among the greatest of men, it is true, but his own letters show that he was sometimes petty, boastful, proud and lost his temper. He was also a brilliant thinker and a great man of God. As a great admirer of Paul, it does not disturb me at all if Paul DID consider something literal that was actually figurative, symbolic or typological.

And what is wrong with that? Even very strong literalists like Micaiah have no problem reading as figurative the flat-earth, geocentric passages of scripture which the original writers believed were literal descriptions. Whether Paul considered Adam to be a literal person or not does not require that we do. Any more than the Psalmist's references to the immobility of the earth on its foundations requires us to reject the science of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton.

So Scripture need not be inerrant?

No, of course not. It needs to be truthful in its principal teachings. It does not need to be without error in every detail. In fact, if you are going to espouse a literal interpretation, you had better hope it is not inerrant, because it is in the historical and scientific details that most contradictions with extra-biblical knowledge occur. So, if you can't move to a non-literal interpretation in those instances, you have no way of upholding the more important doctrinal and moral messages as true either.

It is only if the bible is shown to be wrong in its teachings about God, creation, sin, Christ, redemption and eternal life, or equivalent matters that we have a real problem with the testimony of the bible. Not if it says the earth is fixed on foundations when it really orbits the sun.

To say Genesis 1-2 "was plainly intended as history" is itself a subjective interpretation and has no more justification than to say it "was plainly intended to be mythological"

If that’s the case, then a library that classifies some books as history and others as fable is arbitrary. You wouldn’t even know which section to begin looking for a desired book.

Yes, classification systems are usually arbitrary. And if you had ever volunteered in a library, you would know just how arbitrary a decision on classification can be. Of course, there are criteria to help, but it is not always a foregone conclusion which segment of the Dewey decimal system a book should be filed under. And that is why there are card catalogues (or now the computerized equivalent) to help you search for a book. Because it is not self-evident which shelf a desired book should be on.

When Christianity classified the first 17 books of Scripture as HISTORY (versus poetry), it was not acting arbitrarily.

Well, yes it was acting arbitrarily. Did you know the same books the church calls history are classified by rabbinical tradition as books of law and prophecy? And, by the way, Jesus used the rabbinical classification.

Moreover, you cannot treat the Bible “just like any other book.” If we start with the assumption that the Bible alone is inspired (feel free to contest that on other threads), it is already in a special category. Hence we will need prima facie evidence for mythologizing a biblical text – and not just evidence, but evidence shown to be HERMENEUTICALLY CONSISTENT.

Granting the need for hermeneutical consistency, are you suggesting that it is inconsistent to view a work as simultaneously inspired and mythological? Or that prima facie evidence for historicizing a biblical text is not needed?

 

[gluadys]

#2 Historico-critical analysis of biblical text

The contradictions between the two creation stories are endemic to the text, not a figment of fallible interpretation.

Cmon, Glaudy’s. I explicitly provided a refutation of these alleged contradictions by referring you here:
See the posts # 87-88, 90-94, and 102 on the following thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t1140439-how-do-you-explain-the-miracles-and.html&page=2[/quote]

Did you say someplace how old you are? Doesn't matter really. Just that being young is a good justification for being a novice. And those posts show you are a real novice on the debates about the composite origin of Genesis.

You are making the typical assumptions of a novice that when speaking of two different creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, scholars are referring to such disparities in vocabulary and style as might occur in the works of one writer as s/he writes on different topics or for a different purpose.

But the actual differences go far beyond that. There is no question, from the perspective of comparative linguistics and textual analysis, that:

a) Gen. 1:1-2:4a and Gen. 2:4b through to the end of chapter 4 are written by different writers entirely.
b) Furthermore, the writer of 2:4b ff wrote 2-5 centuries before the writer of Gen. 1:1-2:4a.
c) Nor are these the only passages written by either writer. Other sequences in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers were also composed by these same writers, and linguistic and textual analysis allows us to distinguish which is which. (A third writer also wrote parts of these books as well.)

To even begin to understand the force of the arguments which led to these conclusions, you would need to be able to read ancient Hebrew fluently and have a good working knowledge of linguistics, archeology, ancient social organization and customs, art and history of the times.

Fortunately for those of us who are not specialists in the study of ancient manuscripts, with a view to establishing dates and authors and first audiences, there are some good popularizations of the concepts involved and how they led to these conclusions. The one most readily available is Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman. When you have read and digested that book, we can discuss this topic again, from the basis of a shared knowledge.

Instead I have to keep BEGGING both you and Vance to respond. After five days, I’m about worn out.

Oh, don't be so impatient. Last time my computer crashed I was offline for three weeks. We won't know what is holding Vance up until he returns to tell us.

 

[gluadys]

#3 JAL's REAL arguments re literal "days" of creation

THE FACT THAT THE REAL ARGUMENTS STILL REMAIN PROVES THAT YOUR SEMANTIC COMPLAINT WAS NEVER THE CRUX. Here are my two main arguments once again (“sigh”). (1) The first challenge is to show how it is hermeneutically consistent to categorize 8 invisible elements of Scripture as literal realities (such as angels) while classifying a visible element (men such as Adam and Eve) as myth.

Visible? You mean like Captain Ahab and Ishmael? or Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern? Maybe Lady Bovary or Jane Eyre? Are these men and women visible?

I don't think the relevant contrast is between visible and invisible, but between physical and spiritual. And yes, I understand that you take all things to be physical. Nevertheless, you have to be aware that science counts as physical that which can be sensed physically. Either by our own bodily senses, or by an instrument which can detect in some way what our bodily senses cannot. Or, at the outermost reach, an instrument which can detect a physically measurable result of a flow of energy (as particle accelerators do).

The invisible elements you mention cannot be detected by bodily sense, nor by physical instrumentation. But, as far as we know, Adam and Eve cannot be so detected either. How do you physically, visibly detect characters in a story?

And that, I think, answers your hermeneutical question. When people say Adam and Eve are literal, they not only mean that Adam and Eve are not characters in a story; they mean they were visible, tangible human beings whose genes we have inherited. But no such claim of physicality or visibility is made for God, angels, the soul, etc. So it is not hermeuntically inconsistent to affirm a non-literal existence for Adam & Eve and yet affirm a literal existence of the soul, since the latter does not make the same claim to physicality or visibility as the former.

So, if you were to ask me if I believe Adam & Eve are real in the same non-physical, intangible, invisible way the angels are, I would happily agree. In fact, one branch of science today is exploring the existence of such realities which pass, not from body to body, but from mind to mind. They call them "memes". And the origin, dispersion and evolution of memes is just as fascinating, though very different in character than the evolution of genes.


BTW, I should also point out, that it is not hermeneutically inconsistent to hold that Adam & Eve were in fact, literal, physical, tangible, visible people and still hold that the biblical story about them is not literal. Such instances are fairly common.

Julius Caesar, for example, is a real historical figure. He and all his contemporaries believed literally that his family line was begun when the goddess Venus gave birth to one of his ancestors. Obviously, we would consider that story mythological. And although it refers to Caesar and many other real people and some actual events, we would still consider Shakespeare's play about Julius Caesar to be fiction, not history.

Some possible biblical instances of fictional stories about real people are the book of Job and the book of Jonah.

(2) There are three testaments, namely the Old Testament, the New Testament, and all of Nature. Many YECists say that Nature could be a metaphor for the Ancient of Days. This is called “the appearance of age” argument. Theistic evolutionists object that such a metaphor, if actual, has distorted history in the eyes of many - yet postulate a metaphorical Genesis which, if actual, has distorted history in the eyes of many. This is trying to have one’s cake and eat it too. [/quote]

Again, the natural world is tangible to our senses. It could still be a metaphor for the Ancient of Days, but that is a matter for literary study, not science. If you have read enough on these boards, you will be aware that it is not appearance of age that theistic evolutionists object to, but appearance of history. To have physical evidence of a history that did not occur in time makes no scientific sense. Nor, for that matter, any theological sense in light of Christian doctrine on the nature of God and the nature of creation.

Remember Descartes? How did he resolve that he could trust his physical senses to convey a true message of reality to his mind? By faith that the Creator was not a deceiver, that is how. And that is Christian orthodoxy as well.

Christians believe that the world is not imaginary because they believe a real Creator really created it. Christians believe the world in not irrational because they believe God is not irrational. Christians believe we can (usually) trust our senses, because they believe God gave them to us in order to perceive things as they are. Christians believe we are capable of rational knowledge about creation because they believe God gave us a mind with the intention that we use it, and serve and glorify God with our intellect as well as with our heart's love, our soul's passion and our body's strength.

But what can we say about a "history" in the bible, which has not only left no physical evidence of any kind, but whose assertions are bluntly contradicted by the evidence of creation? If it were simply a matter of no evidence, we would be left in a quandary, for absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But when we have clearly contradictory evidence, the physical evidence we can be sure of must outweigh the claim to historical reality of that which denies this evidence.

But note, that it only outweighs the claim to historical reality. It does not require that the scripture be discarded or demoted in any way; only that the interpretation be altered to take account of its non-historical character.

Genesis can be reconciled with science if it is not interpreted literally. It is only the literal interpretation of the text that contradicts science. Science has shown us that creation did not occur in only 6 days...Hence, any reconciliation of science with Genesis must rely to some extent on non-literal interpretation.

I have responded to this charge (a) on this thread (b) on the thread referenced above and (c) on numerous threads that you attended. Yet here again you deny my conclusion without examining my reasoning.

But you are using a non-literal meaning of "day" to make your reconciliation of science and Genesis.

Words, of course, have plural meanings. Some of those meanings are literal and some are not. In the case of the word "day" there are two literal meanings.

1. The period of time from sunrise to sunset (=time of light as opposed to darkness, "day" vs. "night".)
2. The period of time in which the earth completes one full turn on its axis (= a "day" as in definition 1 + a night)

All other uses of "day" are figurative.

Briefly, here’s my argument yet again (“sigh”). As far as I can see (correct me if I’m wrong), no reputable scientist would limit the literal meaning of “day” to 24 hours because suns and planets can vary in size.

But the definitions above did not mention 24 hours. Change the word "earth" to "planet" and they are valid no matter how long the day. btw neither the size of the sun, nor the size of the planet makes any difference. The relevant figure is the speed at which the planet rotates on its axis. Jupiter is much bigger than earth but its day is much shorter because of the speed of its rotation.

For instance Webster's includes the following possible definitions of "day."
1 a : the time of light between one night and the next b : DAYLIGHT 1, 2
2 : the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis
Genesis 1:5 uses definition #1 for day, namely a daylight/morning followed by an evening/darkness. Since our sun did not exist until day 4 of Genesis, there is no 24-hour limitation.

Hmm, same definition of "day" as I gave above. Seems I agree with Webster.

Now, it gets tricky. It depends on what time period you are basing your affirmation of literalness on, and it appears you are conflating modern understandings of literalness with ancient ones.

Let's assume the following is a literal fact:

The earth rotates on its axis, giving us alternating periods of light and dark.

Then, by definition 2, the length of the day is 24 hours, because that is the period of the earth's rotation.

This being so, it does not make any difference what the source of light is, nor that other planets have different rotation speeds. The 24 hour limit to the length of day is not set by the sun or by other planets, but by the earth itself.

However, we have a problem of a different nature here.

The biblical writer would have disputed the fact of the earth's rotation. For the biblical writer, the length of the day on earth was not set by the earth, but by something he considered to be a literal fact. Namely...

"The sun moves across the sky from east to west in the day and completes its circuit back to its eastern starting point during the night."

Assuming this movement of the sun in its circuit around the earth was literal fact, he defined "day" as the time it takes to complete one such circuit.

Now, with "day" defined by the movement of the sun instead of the movement of the earth, one can discuss whether the days prior to the creation of the sun were of the same or a different length. Note, however, that all such discussion is speculative as the text can support either assertion.

So a literal day on earth can be longer than 24 hours, if and only if, the ancient perspective on what constitutes a "day" is accepted. And that requires that the sun literally move around the earth (geo-centricity).

If we accept modern science, what constitutes a "day" is a movement of the earth, not of the sun or any other light source, and in that case a literal day is necessarily a 24-hour day.

The question is, what sun provided the six days? And was it a 24-hour sun? According to 2Cor 4:4-6 (cf. Rev 1:16; etc), the Sun of Genesis 1:3 was God’s glory shining in Christ’s face (many Bible margins connect 2Cor 4-6 DIRECTLY to Gen 1:3).

Why is it people have such a hard time understanding that scripture is literature, even if it is also more than literature. All the biblical writers use literary techniques for effect. This is a gross distortion of what the text says. Had you given an answer like this in my English class, you would have failed in comprehension. Rev. 1:16 uses a simile to describe Christ as he appeared in John's vision. By definition, a simile is a literary not a literal description. Paul is using an analogy, and an analogy, again by definition, is not literal.

How much time transpired during the six days? Genesis doesn’t say.

Taken literally, yes it does. It is referring to what we ordinarily call a day on earth. So the time that transpired in 6 days is 6 x 24 hours. Any other interpretation is non-literal.

A LITERAL READING OF GENESIS DOES NOT REQUIRE 24 HOUR DAYS. k?

Yes, it does. Any interpretation which does not use the literal meaning of a day on earth (as set out above) is not a literal reading of the text.*

*unless, as demonstrated above, one reverts to a geo-centric view of the cosmos.

 

[gluadys]

#4 Soul and original sin

In the next quote, you do the same thing yet again! You assert your opinion on soul without addressing my REASON given on this thread for rejecting such traditional theories

I wasn't attempting to debate your reason. Only to explain my thinking, which is clearly not consistent with yours and Tertullian's. I am amused to hear my conception of the soul described as "traditional". Few others would say it is.

In fact, I specifically sent you by private message, quite some time ago, a reference to my list of some 25 logical arguments for materialism.

Me or Vance? I have not received any private message from you.

Donald Bloesch ... even admits that the body cannot, logically, be the cause of corruption

Good for him. I quite agree. Just as Jesus did. (Matthew 15:16-20)

The reason is simple. If we are not Adam, we didn’t sin, and hence our souls should not be tainted.

Now you are contradicting yourself. If the soul is physical, how can a taint of the soul not be biological? In any case, I would not agree with the term "tainted" in the first place.

Scripture asserts that (1) all have sinned (2) all are corrupt and (3) and all need a savior.

I agree with (1) and (3). Can you give me a reference for (2)?

Did all the angels sin? No. If all men still had FULL freedom of choice, some would NOT sin. Yet they all do, wherefore they MUST be born sin-tainted, as Scripture asserts.

There are other ways of limiting freedom of choice without resorting to claiming that original sin is a birth defect. Where does scripture assert that people are born sin-tainted?

How is it that all sinned in his act (Rom 5)?

Unhh-unhh. Look at that text again. It does not say all sinned in Adam's act. Rather that all sinned, and Paul specifically notes that those sins were not like the transgression of Adam (v. 14)

My particular materialistic model appears to be the ONLY effective solution proposed in 2000 years!

Isn't this just a tad hubristic?

And if children are innocent, why do so many have to suffer starvation, both in the womb and in adolescence?

Oh,come on. Don't get into a blame the victim mentality. One of the things that makes sin sin is its harmful impact on the innocent. Children, born and unborn, suffer because the adults around them sin. Put the blame where it belongs.

 

[gluadys]

#5 Comparative chronologies of creation, including that of modern science

[Science] has shown us that neither chronology in Genesis reflects the actual order of the appearance of living species on earth.

Ok, fine. I have asked for this information again and again, on thread after thread. Show me how the chronology of Genesis 1 contradicts the fossil record. I'm not a scientist, so if you don't provide this information, I'm not likely to get it.

Genesis 1: order of appearance if interpreted literally

Earth covered with primeval waters v.2
Light: day & night vv 3-5
Firmament of heaven/sky (same word in Hebrew-it amalgamates the meanings of both English words) vv. 6-8
dry land & vegetation vv. 9-13
sun, moon and stars vv. 14-19
sea creatures and birds vv. 20-23
land creatures vv. 24-25
humans (male & female together, no mention of how many) vv. 26-28

Genesis 2: order of appearance if interpreted literally

earth and heaven (earth NOT covered with water) vv. 4b-6
one man v. 7
vegetation including tree of life v. 8 see also v. 17
rivers ? (not clear just when they were made. The passage describes them as divisions of the river flowing out of the garden, but does not really specify the time of their origin.) see also v. 6
animals and birds v. 19
one woman vv. 21-22

Although you asked for only the fossil record concerning the appearance of living creatures, since the Genesis accounts include heaven and heavenly bodies, for the sake of completeness I will list them as well.

Order of appearance of material creation according to current scientific theories

space-time & energy, sub-atomic particles 13.7 billion years ago (bya)

light elements (hydrogen, helium) origin of universe + 3 seconds

galaxies & stars (in which heavier atoms are created) origin of universe + 300 million years

solar system (the sun, all its satellites and all their satellites, i.e. planets, moons, asteroids, comets, etc.) 4.5 bya

origin of life on earth 3.8 bya

(At this point we begin the fossil record.)

prokaryote cells (e.g. bacteria) 3.5 billion years ago

eukaryote cells (e.g. amoebae, algae) 1.5 billion years ago

simple marine multicellular animals 700 million years ago (mya)

complex marine animals of all phyla 540-490 mya

seedless terrestrial plants (they reproduced using spores), terrestrial arthropods (e.g. centipedes) & marine vertebrates 490-440 mya

fungi, spiders & vascular, seedless plants (e.g ferns) 440-417 mya

amphibians, insects, seed plants (but no flowering plants yet) 417-354 mya

modern fish, reptiles, terrestrial snails 354-290 mya

therapsids (mammal-like reptiles), coniferous trees 290-248 mya

dinosaurs 248-206 mya

cycads & ginkos, early birds, early mammals 206-144 mya

flowering plants 144-65 mya

large land mammals, kelps, grass 65-5.3 mya

humans 2 mya

Homo sapiens 160,000 years ago


Salient differences from biblical chronologies

Earth was not the beginning of creation. Most of the heavens were created long before the earth. Stars existed long before sun, moon or earth.

The creation of the earth was simultaneous with the creation of the sun and moon, as these were all generated in the formation of the solar system.


Life appeared on earth within 1 billion years, but no complex life appeared for another 3 billion years.

Animals, not plants, are the first complex life. All early life is marine life.

Plants appear on land before animals. Insects and other arthropods appear on land before other animals. Birds and mammals are the last major animal groups to appear----long after marine life. So no equivalent to Gen. day 3 (in which terrestrial vegetation appears before marine creatures) or Gen. day 5 (in which marine creatures and birds appear simultaneously and before any terrestrial animals)


Plants & animals do not appear in homgeneous groups. Instead of all plants appearing at the same time, all fish and all birds at the same time and all land animals at the same time, the fossil record shows some development of all groups in each time period.

So marine animals (but not birds) appear before plants, but plants appear on land before any terrestrial animals. Additionally, some marine animals (e.g. modern fish) appear after both plants and animals appear on land.

Amphibians appear before reptiles and reptiles before both mammals and birds. Similar sequences are found in invertebrate life. Biblical accounts have all these groups appearing simultaneously.

Spore-bearing plants appear before seed-bearing plants, and seed-bearing conifers and cycads appear before flowering plants (including fruit trees and grasses) Biblical accounts have all these groups appearing simultaneously before any animal life exists.

Our species is only one of several human species which have existed in history, but which, except for our own, are now extinct.

 

[JAL]

Thanks for the response. Your attention to detail here far exceeded previous posts. I am impressed. I’m going to throw out some quick responses just to get the ball rolling, but in so doing I may misrepresent you until after I have re-read your material. So my apologies in advance, and I will confess/correct any mistakes once I become aware of them.

For starters, you asked me where Scripture has mankind born in sin. I find evidence of that at Psa 51:5, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Secondly, there are a number of verses seemingly unqualified about universal sin (Rom 3:1ff, Rom 5:1:ff). Thirdly, I pointed out that, logically, if infants are born innocent, abortion is a favor guaranteeing salvation for them. I am not ready to accept a gospel of such disturbing implications because I seek theodicy (a gospel where justice reigns).



You keep reading “biological” into my use of the term physical. Allow me to clarify. The term “physical” need not, in my opinion, be restricted to protons, neutrons, and electrons. For instance, I doubt that Big-Bang scientists would so describe matter prior to the Big-Bang. When I say “physical,” I merely imply “tangible” – that and nothing more. When I speak of a tainted soul, you accuse me of a biological taint – as though our biological makeup corrupts our desires. On the contrary, sin is rather the result of volitionally choosing to intensify desires to the point of lust, or of misdirecting desires to things prohibited. This rebellion leaves a taint (a rebellious tendency) upon the soul. For instance, one way to become a crack addict is to indulge in crack. To say that the soul is physical is not to say that physiology is the cause of sin. For instance Lewis Sperry Chafer, president and founder of Dallas Theological Seminary, argued that angels are physical. Obviously he was NOT implying that biological structure/genome was the cause of Lucifer’s sin!

Unhh-unhh. Look at that text again. It does not say all sinned in Adam's act. Rather that all sinned, and Paul specifically notes that those sins were not like the transgression of Adam (v. 14)

Your appeal to verse 14 is a powerful one, but it’s difficult to see Adam’s sin as MERELY individualistic for two reasons. First, look at verse 15, “Through the offence of one many be dead.” Look at verse 12, “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” And verse 16, “For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation.” Condemnation by one man? Yes.



Not only that, but Paul uses the element of contrast to reinforce the point. You made a statement relevant to this contrast so I’ll deal with it now. You stated:

Oh,come on. Don't get into a blame the victim mentality. One of the things that makes sin sin is its harmful impact on the innocent. Children, born and unborn, suffer because the adults around them sin. Put the blame where it belongs.

There are two problems with this statement. First, it directly contradicts the notion of justice that children suffer for the sins of their parents. I say this as a self-evident axiom in my opinion, but I also have Scripture to back it up (Eze 18:20). So why then do other verses have children suffering for the sins of their parents? Excellent question! This is justice ONLY if the children are already born guilty. All of us deserve to be in hell if we are born guilty, but none of the living are in hell right now. Why? God’s mercy. But He has no obligation to be merciful. Therefore if parents arouse His anger, He has every right to lift His mercy from the parents even if, in so doing, the children suffer for it. But He would NEVER let parents’ sin put children into suffering beyond what the children themselves already deserve for their OWN sin, because children NEVER suffer for the sins of their parents (Eze 18:20). They are, ultimately, suffering for their own sin. Now my model is the only one that I’ve ever heard of that TOTALLY ELIMINATES this sort of problem (problems such as children suffering for the sins of their parents). Yet you insinuate that I’m being arrogant to suggest that my model is seemingly (and I said “seemingly” not “definitely”) the first to solve this Problem of Evil. Keep in mind that I am not merely saying this of my own accord. I gave you references to theologians (such as the Catholic Catechism) who admit that no theological system in 2000 years has solved this problem. So, Yes, I have some basis for suspecting my system to be the first and ONLY solution.



Now for the contrast. When Paul says (repeatedly) in Romans 5 that death came to all through Adam, is this just physical death? To me, the question is perhaps moot. Why so? Because Paul repeatedly contrasts “death” with “eternal life” in these passages (not only in Romans 5 but also at 6:23). That is to say, death is the loss of eternal fellowship with the Father. That’s a pretty serious consequence of Adam’s sin – and any system that fails to deal with it effectively is unsatisfactory in my opinion. Many atheists would reject traditional Christianity on this basis alone because it seems unjust.

I am impressed by your brilliant appeal to verse 14 of Romans 5. I think this is indeed a weak point in my system. Given what my system seems to accomplish, however, I can hardly feel ashamed of, or excessively daunted by, a few problem verses. Show me a theological system with no problem passages! Verse 5:14 states, “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.” On the surface, Paul seems to be taking back with the one hand what he put forth with the other (universal sin in Adam). But I don’t see the need to push the verse that far. On the contrary, he is apparently CONFIRMING universal sin in Adam. That is to say, he is probably alluding here to infants, because death reigns over them even before they are old enough to have had a chance to repeat Adam’s sin, that is, a chance to have “sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.”

 

[JAL]

As to the question, need Scripture be inerrant, you responded,

No, of course not. It needs to be truthful in its principal teachings. It does not need to be without error in every detail. In fact, if you are going to espouse a literal interpretation, you had better hope it is not inerrant, because it is in the historical and scientific details that most contradictions with extra-biblical knowledge occur. So, if you can't move to a non-literal interpretation in those instances, you have no way of upholding the more important doctrinal and moral messages as true either.

Agreed. A biblical writer can probably err in minor issues of historical detail, as long as he is inerrant on the major issues (and thus I stick with literalism even in the face of most problem passages). And this is precisely what you point out in your next statement:

It is only if the bible is shown to be wrong in its teachings about God, creation, sin, Christ, redemption and eternal life, or equivalent matters that we have a real problem with the testimony of the bible. Not if it says the earth is fixed on foundations when it really orbits the sun.

The whole gospel hinges on the justice of God. Paul’s defense of God’s justice hinges on Adam, so far as I can see, indeed, so far as Christianity has held, by and large, for 2000 years. If Adam were just a “minor historical detail,” I would be less adamant against Vance’s mythologizing him – and not just mythologizing him, but even insinuating that Paul may have ERRED in regard to whether Adam was a literal figure. Vance makes a statement like that, and you accuse ME of being the arrogant one? Interesting.

 

[JAL]

After I wrote this:

Cmon, Glaudy’s. I explicitly provided a refutation of these alleged contradictions by referring you here:
See the posts # 87-88, 90-94, and 102 on the following thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t1140439-how-do-you-explain-the-miracles-and.html&page=2

You responded with the following patronization:

Did you say someplace how old you are? Doesn't matter really. Just that being young is a good justification for being a novice. And those posts show you are a real novice on the debates about the composite origin of Genesis.

You are making the typical assumptions of a novice that when speaking of two different creation accounts in Genesis 1-2, scholars are referring to such disparities in vocabulary and style as might occur in the works of one writer as s/he writes on different topics or for a different purpose.

But the actual differences go far beyond that. There is no question, from the perspective of comparative linguistics and textual analysis, that:

a) Gen. 1:1-2:4a and Gen. 2:4b through to the end of chapter 4 are written by different writers entirely.
b) Furthermore, the writer of 2:4b ff wrote 2-5 centuries before the writer of Gen. 1:1-2:4a.
c) Nor are these the only passages written by either writer. Other sequences in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers were also composed by these same writers, and linguistic and textual analysis allows us to distinguish which is which. (A third writer also wrote parts of these books as well.)

To even begin to understand the force of the arguments which led to these conclusions, you would need to be able to read ancient Hebrew fluently and have a good working knowledge of linguistics, archeology, ancient social organization and customs, art and history of the times.

Fortunately for those of us who are not specialists in the study of ancient manuscripts, with a view to establishing dates and authors and first audiences, there are some good popularizations of the concepts involved and how they led to these conclusions. The one most readily available is Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard E. Friedman. When you have read and digested that book, we can discuss this topic again, from the basis of a shared knowledge.

If the NT supports Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, I frankly don't give a hoot what your textual critics say. Moses is mentioned more often in the NT than any human being of the entire OT. If you can show me some pretty good arguments that none of these NT verses support Mosaic authorship, or show me that the NT supports multi-authorship, then I will grant some credence to the above patronization. If you can't do this, your words are falling on deaf ears. Why so? Because textual critics are not INSPIRED after the fashion of NT authors. If you place more confidence in the critics then in the NT, that's your prerogative, but this would seem to entail cannonizing the writings of the critics.

Secondly, every time someone challanges Mosaic authorship on this forum, it seems to distract from the real meat of my arguments. The MAIN question at issue is not whether Moses wrote both Genesis 1 and 2 but whether the two passages logically contradict each other. For the third time, I ask you to address my REASONS adduced to harmonize the two passages.

 

[JAL]

I stated:

Scripture asserts that (1) all have sinned (2) all are corrupt and (3) and all need a savior.

To which you replied,

I agree with (1) and (3). Can you give me a reference for (2)?

This leaves me scratching my head. If you agree that all have sinned, I’m not sure that point 2 really matters anymore. But I would here press once again, HOW could all have sinned (including every fetus) if not through Adam, specifically Adam as I peculiarly define him?

 

[gluadys]

This leaves me scratching my head. If you agree that all have sinned, I’m not sure that point 2 really matters anymore. But I would here press once again, HOW could all have sinned (including every fetus) if not through Adam, specifically Adam as I peculiarly define him?

So, are you saying that you do not have a reference for (2)?

Sin and corruption are not the same thing.

Original sin and the commission of sin are not the same thing.

Original sin does not imply that a fetus has sinned.


PS: I will respond to your other posts later.

 

[JAL]

I think I see your strategy. You want to prove that a literal interpretation of Genesis is not possible, so you refuse to concede any definition of “day” other than 24 hours. I don’t know how much further I’m going to debate this point because I feel that I have refuted it sufficiently. I hate to repeat myself but here we go again. Are you suggesting that 24 hours is inherent to the word “day”? This would imply that planets and suns of other solar systems cannot have days and nights. This seems absurd. On what basis am I supposed to agree with you? What am I missing here? No, I can’t imagine that’s what you mean to imply. Rather you are implying that “day” AS USED IN SCRIPTURE is limited to 24 hours. But to assert that is assuming what is yet to be proven, right? I gave you an ARGUMENT why “day” need not be limited to 24 hours (I appealed to other solar systems), and you respond by merely ASSERTING that a literal day as used in Scripture MUST BE 24 hours. Where’s your argument? Is this forum about arguments, or mere assertions?



Moreover, literalism allows an author to define his own terms. So even if it could be proven that “day” means 24 hours everywhere else in the Bible (and that would be difficult), Genesis 1 begins with its own definition of day. Verses 4 and 5 state: “And God saw the light, that it was good and God divided the light from the darkness.

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night.” I do not see the number 24 in this definition. In fact our sun didn’t exist yet! How can we presume a 24 hour day without our sun? Not only that, but I also gave you some definitions of “day” from Webster’s, repeated as follows. (Show me where the number 24 occurs in these definitions of day).

1 a : the time of light between one night and the next b : DAYLIGHT 1, 2
2 : the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis

- When I mouse-clicked on Daylight, it still didn’t say 24 hours. Note also that definition number 2 allows for other planets to have days. So how can we limit it to 24 hours if other planets are not so constrained? No, it seems to me that you are just using a tactic. You want to establish non-literalism so badly that no matter how many dictionaries or encyclopedia on “day” that I refer you to, even if I refer you to the Bible itself, you are going to insist that YOUR definition (24 hours) is the only POSSIBLE literal definition – and you don’t have a source to prove it! This is beginning to wax a bit old. If you are not going to back up your claim, I’m not going to keep responding. Here’s an interesting fact from Wikipedia’s definition of “day.”: “The earth has over time had an increasingly longer day. The original length of one day, when the earth was new, is actually closer to 23 hours.” So it’s not limited to 24 hours, is it? Let’s suppose the days keep on lengthening in this fashion, say, up to 48 hours someday. Would you then insist that a day has to be 24 hours? That would be ridiculous.

 

[JAL]

So, are you saying that you do not have a reference for (2)?

I provided some references. You indicated you didn't have time to read them.

Sin and corruption are not the same thing. Original sin and the commission of sin are not the same thing.

Oh, believe me, I am well aware that theologians make such distinctions to avoid contradiction, but the question is whether they succeed. Paul said, "All have sinned." You agreed. Now you seem to change your tune (just like these other theologians) by making the following distinction, "Even though they sinned, this is not the same as COMMITTING sin." Is it just me, or does anyone else see why this assertion is problemmatical to say the least?

 

[JAL]

After doing a little web-surfing yesterday I concluded that Genesis is difficult to reconcile with current geological conclusions. I’m not even sure it can be done. And frankly I’m a little annoyed with Hugh Ross right now, formerly one of my heroes, because I just found out that he apparently fudges the Hebrew to make it all fit. I’m not going to stoop to that kind of nonsense. On the other hand, the debate ain’t over till the fat lady sings. The following are some of your geologic reasons for rejecting Genesis as unscientific. I have numbered them for convenience. (And BTW, I’m grateful that you did this, because I have begged other members for this type of information on other threads with no response):

Salient differences from biblical chronologies

(1) Earth was not the beginning of creation. Most of the heavens were created long before the earth. Stars existed long before sun, moon or earth.

(2) The creation of the earth was simultaneous with the creation of the sun and moon, as these were all generated in the formation of the solar system.

(3) Life appeared on earth within 1 billion years, but no complex life appeared for another 3 billion years.

(4) Animals, not plants, are the first complex life. All early life is marine life.

(5) Plants appear on land before animals. Insects and other arthropods appear on land before other animals. Birds and mammals are the last major animal groups to appear----long after marine life. So no equivalent to Gen. day 3 (in which terrestrial vegetation appears before marine creatures) or Gen. day 5 (in which marine creatures and birds appear simultaneously and before any terrestrial animals)



(6) Plants & animals do not appear in homgeneous groups. Instead of all plants appearing at the same time, all fish and all birds at the same time and all land animals at the same time, the fossil record shows some development of all groups in each time period.

(7) So marine animals (but not birds) appear before plants, but plants appear on land before any terrestrial animals. Additionally, some marine animals (e.g. modern fish) appear after both plants and animals appear on land.

(8) Amphibians appear before reptiles and reptiles before both mammals and birds. Similar sequences are found in invertebrate life. Biblical accounts have all these groups appearing simultaneously.

(9) Spore-bearing plants appear before seed-bearing plants, and seed-bearing conifers and cycads appear before flowering plants (including fruit trees and grasses) Biblical accounts have all these groups appearing simultaneously before any animal life exists.

(10) Our species is only one of several human species which have existed in history, but which, except for our own, are now extinct.

Biblical assertions often have a limited scope even without pre-signals in the text. For instance on Pentecost the Spirit is said to be poured out on ALL flesh. All? On unbelievers? No. Hence it is always necessary to consider the possible scopes of a biblical teaching. Genesis was originally written for readers who had no clear knowledge of distant galaxies. They couldn’t SEE distant galaxies. Moses seems to be concerned primarily with the origin of what is visible – that is, visible to the readership of his day. Hence we need not presume that Genesis has anything to say about the origin of our universe. It’s primary concern is with the origin of our galaxy at most. Therefore, as for your point #1, I don’t agree that Genesis has the earth being formed before the rest of the universe. The universe is probably not even a theme of Genesis to begin with. However, I will grant that verse 1 possibly alludes to the universe and, if so, has the universe existing BEFORE the earth, which is the correct order according to science.

- Your point #2 is that Genesis has the sun and moon simultaneous. That’s necessarily so only on the assumption of 24 hour days. Your point #3 also seems to hinge on 24-hour days. Your remaining points are very substantive but are largely dependent on the assumption that Moses intended to give us the whole story. Again, he is primarily concerned with things visible to his readership. The animalia leading up to and including dinosaurs are probably not his primary concern. Yesterday I looked briefly at a couple of geologic time charts. I found it very interesting that the end of the dinosaurs (a likely starting point for Moses) was ALSO the beginning of terrestrial plants (which is where Moses seems to start!). Thus on day 3 of 6, Moses’ mentions terrestrial plants as his first life form, apparently starting just before, or somewhere within, the Paleocene period and probably reaching partway into the next period at least (the Eocene period). Now Moses next speaks of day 4 as the origin of large sea creatures – again, he is probably not dealing here with the FIRST large sea creatures but with the first ones anatomically close to what his readership saw and conceived. Interestingly enough, whales seems to have appeared early in this Eocene period. Then Moses speaks of day 5 as the origin of land mammals – again, not dinosaurs, but modern mammals (the kinds visible to his readership), and not nececessarly all modern mammals, but probably certain ones such as cattle. This sounds to me somewhat like the Oligocene period, which immediately follows the Eocene period. And thus day 5 could include some of the Eocene, all of the Oligocene, and then all subsequent periods until Day 6 when Adam and Eve appeared.



Now it’s true that my theory faces some difficulties, but in all fairness, I ask you to keep the following things in mind when critiquing it. (1) Even though this forum has increased my respect for the scientific community so much that I abandoned YECism, I am by no means convinced that it is totally free from bias. Since most modern scientists look upon the theory of evolution as virtual fact, there still may be a tendency to interpret the data somewhat in favor of preconceived theory. (2) The few charts that I looked at on the web seemed to disagree on the exact dates when certain things appeared. A related point is the admission that some plant life such as grasses do not lend themselves very well to fossilization. So I’m not entirely convinced that my proposed dates for plant life have to be EXACTLY the same dates as most evolutionists allege (if they even concur on the issue). (3) In many cases, historically, evolutionists have asked the community to abide by the theory of evolution even despite apparent discrepancies and a shortage of data, in the hope that the verificational data would be found at some point. Creationists deserve the same consideration in any discussion of Genesis. Examples of discrepancies include (1) the fact that few transitional fossils have been found that Darwin would have hoped for and (2) the major period of life-emergence (the Cambrian) seems sparse in fossil evidence of predecessors/ancestors (this is sort of the “transitional fossil” problem again), although perhaps this evidence is now abundant today (I don’t know) True, evolutionists gave reasons for this fossil paucity (specifically the soft-bodied organism problem). But the Pre-Cambrian, one website said, produced soft-bodied fossilization whence this is a weak excuse (it alleged).



So hopefully this theory of mine addresses most of what you said in points 4 though 9. However, you often used the word “simultaneously” in this argumentation, as though Genesis has this these species appearing simultaneously. Again, you are presuming 24 hour days. You’re entitled to that opinion, but I’ve provided enough dictionary and encyclopedia sources to support MY opinion. Secondly, your points 4 through 9 suggest that any ipso facto speciation is unacceptable. For instance, you suggest that if the fish are created on day 4, any new species of fish on day 5 is a contradiction. That’s a good argument, but I don’t think the text has to be read so strictly. Moses seems to be giving us a one-page snapshot of the emergence of major species. Thirdly, your claims as to when “man” appeared do not impeach my position. In my view, Adam was the first man in the biblical sense of the term. All preceding humanoids were merely manlike.



Like I said, I was a bit disappointed in my own position. I was hoping for a clearer correspondence between Genesis 1 and the fossil record. It would be nice if other OECs would contribute to this discussion, so I’ll probably start another thread to attract their attention.

 

[gluadys]

Thanks for the response. Your attention to detail here far exceeded previous posts. I am impressed. I’m going to throw out some quick responses just to get the ball rolling, but in so doing I may misrepresent you until after I have re-read your material. So my apologies in advance, and I will confess/correct any mistakes once I become aware of them.

Understood

For starters, you asked me where Scripture has mankind born in sin. I find evidence of that at Psa 51:5, “Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Secondly, there are a number of verses seemingly unqualified about universal sin (Rom 3:1ff, Rom 5:1:ff). Thirdly, I pointed out that, logically, if infants are born innocent, abortion is a favor guaranteeing salvation for them. I am not ready to accept a gospel of such disturbing implications because I seek theodicy (a gospel where justice reigns).

1. According to the introductory inscription, this was a prayer of David after Nathan reproved him in regard to Bathsheba. It is a personal prayer of deep, heart-felt repentance. David thoroughly condemns himself.

Is there any reason this personal self-condemnation should be considered universally applicable to all people?
Is there not adequate reason to consider that the circumstances led David into using hyperbole?

2. Universal sin, yes. But born sinners? No.

3. Well, that is just bad theology on your part. Life is a blessing even in the face of death.

You keep reading “biological” into my use of the term physical. Allow me to clarify. The term “physical” need not, in my opinion, be restricted to protons, neutrons, and electrons. For instance, I doubt that Big-Bang scientists would so describe matter prior to the Big-Bang. When I say “physical,” I merely imply “tangible” – that and nothing more.

You need to read a bit more physics before you try applying concepts from physics. "Physical" indeed, is not restricted to those three sub-atomic particles; it includes all the other sub-atomic particles (leptons, bosons, mesons, neutrinos, etc.) as well. "Big Bang" scientists are properly called physicists, or more precisely cosmologists. But you are right in saying they would not so describe matter prior to the Big Bang. They don't describe anything prior to the Big Bang as that is the origin point of time and you can't view anything "prior" to the existence of time. And if "physical" = "tangible" then sub-atomic particles are not physical.

Since you have already said (correctly) that your concept of the physical includes, but goes beyond, protons, neutrons and electrons, you need to develop a definition of the physical which does not depend on being tangible.

Gravity, electro-magnetism and light are other physical realities which are not tangible.

All of these are, however, detectable directly or indirectly by the physical senses, and measurable. I suggested earlier that these are the hallmarks of physicality.

When I speak of a tainted soul, you accuse me of a biological taint

Because you have said the soul is physical. How can the human soul be part of physical human nature without being biological?

But, even if you did not describe the soul as physical, I would still object to the notion that the soul is tainted.

On the contrary, sin is rather the result of volitionally choosing to intensify desires to the point of lust, or of misdirecting desires to things prohibited. This rebellion leaves a taint (a rebellious tendency) upon the soul.

In which case, no person is capable of sin without the capacity to will sin. So, the soul only becomes tainted when sin occurs, and this taint is not original sin.

Your appeal to verse 14 is a powerful one, but it’s difficult to see Adam’s sin as MERELY individualistic for two reasons. First, look at verse 15, “Through the offence of one many be dead.” Look at verse 12, “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world and by sin death: and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” And verse 16, “For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation.” Condemnation by one man? Yes.

Yes, I am familiar with the passage. In fact, I do not think Adam's sin was individualistic, as I do not think Adam was an individual.

There are two problems with this statement. First, it directly contradicts the notion of justice that children suffer for the sins of their parents.

But I did not say that children suffer for the sins of their parents. I said they suffer because their parents (and other adults) sin against them. When a father rapes his 10-year old daughter, she suffers. That is not because of her sin, original or otherwise. Nor is she suffering for him. She is an innocent victim suffering because he is sinning against her. It is purely his sin. The only justice called for is God's wrath (and hopefully a human court's wrath as well) on him.

Now for the contrast. When Paul says (repeatedly) in Romans 5 that death came to all through Adam, is this just physical death? To me, the question is perhaps moot. Why so? Because Paul repeatedly contrasts “death” with “eternal life” in these passages (not only in Romans 5 but also at 6:23). That is to say, death is the loss of eternal fellowship with the Father. That’s a pretty serious consequence of Adam’s sin – and any system that fails to deal with it effectively is unsatisfactory in my opinion. Many atheists would reject traditional Christianity on this basis alone because it seems unjust.

Personally, I don't think it is physical death at all, for much the same reasons as Vance has advanced. As to the rest, I agree with you.

On the surface, Paul seems to be taking back with the one hand what he put forth with the other (universal sin in Adam). But I don’t see the need to push the verse that far. On the contrary, he is apparently CONFIRMING universal sin in Adam. That is to say, he is probably alluding here to infants, because death reigns over them even before they are old enough to have had a chance to repeat Adam’s sin, that is, a chance to have “sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.”

No, I would not agree that Paul is making a special allusion to infants anywhere in the passage. He is dealing with the question of why anyone should die because of Adam when they did not commit Adam's sin.

The whole gospel hinges on the justice of God. Paul’s defense of God’s justice hinges on Adam, so far as I can see, indeed, so far as Christianity has held, by and large, for 2000 years.

Very Calvinistic. As a Presbyterian, I appreciate that. However, I also suggest that Calvin may have been unduly swayed by his profession to assign too much weight to a legalistic substitution theory of atonement. I personally lean more toward the Christus Victor theory of atonement, though I would hold that no one image of atonement does justice to the reality of God's grace.

If Adam were just a “minor historical detail,” I would be less adamant against Vance’s mythologizing him – and not just mythologizing him, but even insinuating that Paul may have ERRED in regard to whether Adam was a literal figure.

Historical or not, Adam is not a minor detail. And that is one of the things I was getting at when I spoke of your equation of non-literal interpretations as equivalent to discarding or demoting teaching relating to Adam.

Why should it be a problem to say Paul might have been in error? He was a human being, living in a particular time, place and culture that limited his knowledge and directed his thinking. Any of us can err because of our contingent particularity. Why not Paul?

One of the particularities of our time is that we draw a sharp distinction between metaphorical and literal realities. To us, "metaphorical" excludes "literal" and vice versa. One of the particularities of Paul's time (and most ancient thinking) is that this line is not drawn. No distinction is made between metaphor and literal reality. Paul, no doubt, considered Adam to be literal. But he also considered Adam to be metaphorical and mystical. (Check out the Jewish mystical tradition of Adam Kadmon) In fact, much of all Paul's argument in Romans is clarified by some acquaintance with Jewish mysticism in the first century. Paul also considers Christ in mystical as well as literal perspective, e.g as the cosmic Christ of Colossians 1: 15-20, and considers the mystical knowledge of Christ to be superior to literal knowledge (2 Corinthians 5:16)

Paul would assume Adam to be literal, but he also clearly asserts a mystical view of Adam when he speaks of him as a type or figure of Christ. Since his argument, throughout Romans is based on Adam (and Christ) in their mystical rather than their literal reality, I do not consider that it loses any force if Adam was not literal. The mystical Adam is just as real as any literal Adam would be and more relevant to what Paul is saying.

After I wrote this: You responded with the following patronization:
If the NT supports Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, I frankly don't give a hoot what your textual critics say. .... The MAIN question at issue is not whether Moses wrote both Genesis 1 and 2 but whether the two passages logically contradict each other. For the third time, I ask you to address my REASONS adduced to harmonize the two passages.

I gave you my reasons and a way to become more familiar with the evidential support for them. Since you are not interested in exploring that evidence, this aspect of the conversation ends here.

In any case there is no need for it. The two creation accounts differ in chronology if interpreted literally, as I described in my fifth post in the series above. Since the literal interpretation of the chronology leads to an irreconcilable contradiction, one or the other or both must be interpreted non-literally in order to maintain consistency.

Now, since you have already asserted that you do not subscribe to the literal chronology of either Gen. 1 or Gen. 2, then, of course, there is no logical contradiction within your interpretive framework. I also do not subscribe to the literal chronology of either passage. So there does not seem to be much point in debating a proposition neither of us agree with in the first place.

 

[JAL]

Honestly, Gluadys, so many of your comments are so peripheral that this conversation is becoming a waste of words. Like many others I’ve seen on this forum, you seem more interested in saving face than getting at the truth. All of us want to save face. I myself don’t like admitting to any weak points in my positions. But I often do so, and I don’t dodge arguments. You throw out responses as if you are refuting my position even though most of your statements obsess with minor aspects of the whole discussion. Anyway, I'm going to take this a little further.

I think I missed some of your comments about 24 hour days. I'll consider them now. I think this statement of yours is important:

Jupiter is much bigger than earth but its day is much shorter because of the speed of its rotation.

Thank you for at least conceding here that a day isn't necessarily 24 hours. The 24-hour rule obviously applies to our earth and sun. The question is, when Genesis defines day and night (verse 5), did our sun yet exist? No. Did our earth exist? NO! At least, not in its present form – it was water. Until the Renaissance, it was an ABSOLUTE CONSENSUS that our visible heavens (and thus probably our whole galaxy) was originally a huge body of water because God, for reasons unrevealed in Scripture, decided to form the earth from water. 2Pet 3:5 states, "Long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water" (NIV). Without an earth as such, and with no sun, I see no basis for regarding the "day" of Genesis 1:5 as 24 hours.

But you are using a non-literal meaning of "day" to make your reconciliation of science and Genesis.

Is Webster’s dictionary insufficiently literal for your taste?

Words, of course, have plural meanings. Some of those meanings are literal and some are not. In the case of the word "day" there are two literal meanings.

1. The period of time from sunrise to sunset (=time of light as opposed to darkness, "day" vs. "night".)

2. The period of time in which the earth completes one full turn on its axis (= a "day" as in definition 1 + a night)



All other uses of "day" are figurative.

See comments above. As I said, you are forcing our earth and sun into the formula even though Genesis features days and nights BEFORE our earth and sun.

Hmm, same definition of "day" as I gave above. Seems I agree with Webster.

No, you start with something like Webster’s definition and then subsequently narrow it down (limit it) to our earth and sun. That’s not what Webster did. This is what Webster said.

1 a : the time of light between one night and the next b : DAYLIGHT 1, 2
2 : the period of rotation of a planet (as earth) or a moon on its axis

As for definition 1, how much time is that? 24 hours? Not on all planets. And apparently not in Genesis since there was no earth and sun. You are trying to force our earth and sun into both (a) the Webster definition and (b) the Bible definition. The rest of your comments resort to the same tactic:

Now, it gets tricky. It depends on what time period you are basing your affirmation of literalness on, and it appears you are conflating modern understandings of literalness with ancient ones.

Let's assume the following is a literal fact:



The earth rotates on its axis, giving us alternating periods of light and dark.



Then, by definition 2, the length of the day is 24 hours, because that is the period of the earth's rotation.



This being so, it does not make any difference what the source of light is, nor that other planets have different rotation speeds. The 24 hour limit to the length of day is not set by the sun or by other planets, but by the earth itself.



However, we have a problem of a different nature here.



The biblical writer would have disputed the fact of the earth's rotation. For the biblical writer, the length of the day on earth was not set by the earth, but by something he considered to be a literal fact. Namely...



"The sun moves across the sky from east to west in the day and completes its circuit back to its eastern starting point during the night."



Assuming this movement of the sun in its circuit around the earth was literal fact, he defined "day" as the time it takes to complete one such circuit.



Now, with "day" defined by the movement of the sun instead of the movement of the earth, one can discuss whether the days prior to the creation of the sun were of the same or a different length. Note, however, that all such discussion is speculative as the text can support either assertion.



So a literal day on earth can be longer than 24 hours, if and only if, the ancient perspective on what constitutes a "day" is accepted. And that requires that the sun literally move around the earth (geo-centricity).



If we accept modern science, what constitutes a "day" is a movement of the earth, not of the sun or any other light source, and in that case a literal day is necessarily a 24-hour day.

 

[gluadys]

I provided some references. You indicated you didn't have time to read them.
Oh, believe me, I am well aware that theologians make such distinctions to avoid contradiction, but the question is whether they succeed. Paul said, "All have sinned." You agreed. Now you seem to change your tune (just like these other theologians) by making the following distinction, "Even though they sinned, this is not the same as COMMITTING sin." Is it just me, or does anyone else see why this assertion is problemmatical to say the least?

And in another post you said:

For instance on Pentecost the Spirit is said to be poured out on ALL flesh. All? On unbelievers?

Now if "all" does not mean "all" in this context, then it need not mean "all" in the first context either. I take it as self-evident that it no more includes infants who have had no opportunity to commit sin, than the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on "all" flesh included unbelievers.