The true foundation for a belief in a young earth

[william jay schroeder]

Has anyone looked up what the word day is in Hebrew and that it is singular and not pluarel. you can look at other p0laces this word is used and see it is used in a plurale and in a singular form. I think it is yom(one day, evening and morning). So God is lieing or you are misinterpreting it to your liking. Or will you say the author got it wrong. Which would mean we couldnt trust any of the scriptures. Some one see if I'm right or not.

 

[Vance]

You are forgetting one very simple possibility (probability, given all the circumstances). That the author DID mean to use the term YOM in the 24-hour sense, and DID mean to describe six, 24 hour periods, but was doing so in a figurative manner. Like my well-worn example of an author wanting to tell the story of a family, but choosing to do so by referring to it as a tree. He does not give ANY explicit clue in the text that when he is talking about the tree and the roots and the braches and leaves, that he is using it all figuratively, but he still wants readers to see that this is what is meant, and would be pretty annoyed to find out that readers were thinking he was actually talking about a tree.

Now, the point is that the writer is using "tree" in the literal, leave and branch, sense of tree, not some other form of the word "tree" like a computer filing system. But the fact that he is intending the literal usage of tree does NOT mean that he means us to read the overall story as literally talking about a tree.

 

[California Tim]

But the fact that he is intending the literal usage of tree does NOT mean that he means us to read the overall story as literally talking about a tree.

Nor, by itself, does it mean He didn't. Hence the need to cross reference scripture with scripture to determine the intent, meaning and interpretation.

 

[Vance]

Nor, by itself, does it mean He didn't. Hence the need to cross reference scripture with scripture to determine the intent, meaning and interpretation.

Right, which means we can not just rely on what WE think is "plain and obvious", since that is not always the right interpretation. We might not see the author's true meaning just from the what our culturally biased minds think is so obvious. We might think the author IS talking about a tree.

We must consider all the evidence God has given us in order to determine what He is telling us. For me, as I have set out in detail, the fact that Genesis should be read literally can be determined just within Scripture, but that is not always the sole arbiter, as Augustine so wisely pointed out.

You, yourself, Tim, use the evidence from the natural world in how you interpret Scripture, so you can't really preach against it.

 

[California Tim]

For me, as I have set out in detail, the fact that Genesis should be read literally can be determined just within Scripture, but that is not always the sole arbiter, as Augustine so wisely pointed out.

You're halfway home. Now if you can just grasp the evidence in light of that, the whole picture just appears in perfect harmony. Bear in mind the order of importance between the Word and creation.

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. (Matt 24:35)​

Creation is always in subjugation to His word, not the other way around.

 

[Vance]

Yes, but you are still begging the question of WHAT those words say. You act as if the words are always understandable on their own, or always in connection with other Scripture. Yet, you also pointed out the Westminster Confession which says this is not the case.

God's words will not pass away, but that does not mean that we should not use ALL the available evidence to determine what those words are saying.

Once again, you also use the evidence from the natural world in your interpretation of Scripture, so why would assert that this is not proper?

 

[California Tim]

You act as if the words are always understandable on their own, or always in connection with other Scripture. Yet, you also pointed out the Westminster Confession which says this is not the case.

Actually I intend to act as though the words CAN be understood. I do not practice a relativistic or subjective system of faith. I am reasonably confident of my position on the matter without being so pious as to not allow for the possibility I could be in error. But it will take much more than a world-view or secular explanation to convince me that scriptures that harmonize to guide me in a particular interpretation are , together, wrong.

 

[Vance]

So, what exactly WOULD convince you that the creation account was meant to be read non-literally?

Or, alternately, what would convince you that the earth was actually old?

 

[California Tim]

So, what exactly WOULD convince you that the creation account was meant to be read non-literally?

Or, alternately, what would convince you that the earth was actually old?

CONTEXT. If the Bible gave an indication that Genesis was not to be read as a historical narrative, I'd be inclined to change my mind. Until such time as this may be demonstrated in context, within the Bible, I see no reason to supercede the objective truth contained therein.

 

[Vance]

CONTEXT. If the Bible gave an indication that Genesis was not to be read as a historical narrative, I'd be inclined to change my mind. Until such time as this may be demonstrated in context, within the Bible, I see no reason to supercede the objective truth contained therein.

Ah, but see, there is where the fly is in the ointment. You associate a literal reading with "objective truth". Why? Can not God provide a statement of objective truth through a figurative account? Is a parable of Jesus not providing an "objective truth"?

This is where the fundamental (pun intended) problem lies. It is the idea that literal = true and figurative = not true.

What are the important messages from Genesis? Are these messages not just as true and real and important if God is telling them to us via non-historical literary vehicle?

 

[JohnR7]

Ah, but see, there is where the fly is in the ointment. You associate a literal reading with "objective truth". Why? Can not God provide a statement of objective truth through a figurative account? Is a parable of Jesus not providing an "objective truth"?

God works through real people. I think He could get the job done a lot better if He did not use people. But it brings Him more honor and Glory that He is able to work in us and through us to accomplish His purpose.

The people given to us in the Bible are given to us as a example to follow & pattern our lives after. The Bible shows us who is and who is not approved by God. Now you want to try to suggest that we should pattern ourselves after a "figurative account"? That is not consistant with the fact that God gives us a example to follow. One thing Jesus did was to set a example for us. Everything that Jesus did, we can and are to do also, though the power of the Holy Spirit working in us.

We have fellowship with these people. To have fellowship with a "figurative account" would be sort of like having an imaginary friend. That sort of thing does not work very well in the real world.

1 John 1:1-3
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; [2] (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us [3] That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

 

[JohnR7]

Some one see if I'm right or not.

Usually the word DAY in the Bible is singluar but not always. It can mean a period of time up to 1000 years.

Genesis 2:17
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

God told Adam that on the day he ate from the forbidden tree he would die.

Genesis 5:4
And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters:

Here a day is used of a period time covering 800 years.