Theisitic Evolution

Hoghead1 said:

Bob, again much of your material on TE is way, way off base. For example, I hold that God was incarnate in Christ. Christ is a revelation of God's general MO with the world and that means God is incarnate throughout creation.

Click to expand...

That's pantheism. Try again.

Hoghead1 said:

The Virgin Birth has always been a problem for theologians, TE or otherwise. Does it literally mean, no sex. Not all biblical scholars would agree with that. They would take the term "virgin" to mean that Mary had no sex prior to being married. After that, no, it is not claiming Christ was somehow sexlessly produced in Mary. Also, the Virgin Birth is not in Mark, which suggests that it is a later addition to Christian thinking. .

Click to expand...

That is outright denial of the Christian doctrine on the virgin birth - T.E.'s would be wise to sit up and "take notice" of where that downward path has led you.

I do not deny that your position is consistent with T.E. that is after all "Theistic" evolutionism and not "Christian evolution" in that it is ready made for anyone who believes in some sort of deity no matter what religion and it does not demand orthodox Christian views.

Hoghead1 said:

What about the Resurrection? I think that God is the guarantor of the meaning of life, because God preserves and enjoys all our experiences in detail, throughout eternity, his or her infinite imagination. And our feelings cannot be preserved without our egos, us. Hence, the Resurrection is powerful testimony to the fact that we are all preserved and enjoyed in God.

Click to expand...

Your efforts to describe the real literal physical bodily resurrection of Christ "as a good thing" -- noted.

But it does not address the point that this is not a 'science' experiment reproducible in the lab. It is an appeal to Bible fact - Bible statement on historic fact - literal Bible miracle -- against all that science "knows" about corpses not coming "back to life".

Hoghead1 said:

BobRyan, I don't think you at all understand TE. First, the notion of original sin is well entrenched in Christian orthodoxy, which is where it originated. Secondly, all this reference to "monkey brains" is way, way off. It is common for people to say that evolution claims we arose from monkeys. But that is not at all the case.

Click to expand...

I don't think you were "paying attention to detail" -- perhaps this was necessary to preserve the T.E. thought at the time. But consider looking "at the details" -- in my description I did not say "Adam came from monkey-brains". Rather I took the well known fact that primitives do dine on monkey brains and inserted that into the "first T.E. man's" daily experience. I point out that having this "barely human" so called T.E.-Adam whose only claim to fame is that he was the first to have the capacity to even imagine the abstract concept of "god" -- be the being on whom the entire destiny of the world would rest, the being that would condemn all mankind to the lake of fire, the being that would call for the torture of God the Son on the cross to rescue him from such a horrible result... not only makes a mockery of the Bible AND the Gospel, it makes a mockery of logic and of God. A result no doubt pleasing to many atheists who would love to malign Christianity.

Hoghead1 said:

. My point is that I do not believe at all in original sin. I do not consider it a biblical concept at all. I do not assume the Bible is an accurate geophysical witness or that it was ever intended to be.

Click to expand...

You're attempt to have it both ways noted. That self-conflicted logic claims the Bible is not trustworthy AND that the Bible does not say anything that opposes T.E. no matter what it says !!

BobRyan said:

You're attempt to have it both ways noted. That self-conflicted logic claims the Bible is not trustworthy AND that the Bible does not say anything that opposes T.E. no matter what it says !!

Click to expand...

Are you saying that he is speaking with forked tongue? It's the "way" of biblical scholars. They change the Bible to fit their views. That's why it's not the literal Truth. It's all made up and supported by nothing but bluff and thoughts of unbelievers. Amen?

I still think you are a bit confused on TE, Bob. Fi8rst, the term I would use is "pan-en-theism" (all-in-God) not "pantheism." The latter implies God is just another name for the universe. The former means that the universe is part of the being of God, but not the whole of God. God transcends the universe, just as I transcend my body.
I don't know of anyone into TE who speaks about some barely human Adam upon whose shoulders the entire fate of the human race rests. Where did you come up with this idea?
I and many other liberal theologians seek to avoid any form of Christian Imperialism, the notion that only Bible-believing Christians re saved. I find this notion allows faith to collapse into ascent to doctrine. it is more important what you believe than how you live. I think the opposite is true with God. I also seek validity in any religion, provided that religion understands that God is loving and is seeking to make the world a more beautiful place for us to live.

The fact of the matter is that there was and is considerable debate over what exactly the Virgin Birth means. This is not a matter specific to TE people.
The notion that Scripture was not intended to be an accurate geophysical witness goes way back into Christian history. Augustine wrote a major work on the topic, titled "Genesis in the Literal Sense." He argued that the plain meaning of Genesis was not at all the way God created. God does not work through movements in time and so created the world in one instant, not six days. The reason the reference to days is in Genesis is that God realized we can think only in terms of time and therefore God accommodated himself to our level of understanding. Calvin took a similar stance. God has to talk "baby talk" to us because of the inferior nature of our minds. Calvin stressed that God did not intend Scripture to be a lesson in astronomy. The flat earth, etc., were simply ways God had of accommodating himself to our feeble intellects, talking 'baby talk" to us. Hence, my claim that Scripture was not intended to be an accurate geophysical witness is very much part and parcel of historical Christianity.

Questions related to meaning, value, significance are wholly outside the range of scientific inquiry, to start with. In talking about the Resurrection, I am addressing such questions and therefore not particularly interested in laboratory research. The problem is this: The evil of evil is that the past fades, that we obtain a satisfaction, only to lose it. What is the point of doing anything when it is al going to go up in smoke soon enough anyway? My answer is that God is the guarantor of the meaning of life; God is the ultimate effect, the ultimate recipient of all our feelings. They are preserved and enjoyed in God forever and therefore have eternal meaning.

If we are going to talk about theistic evolution, it is important to bear in mind that the term covers a wide variety of ideas from Deism to direct and continual intervention. Darwin could be considered a prime example, as in his second edition of "Origin," he argued that life emerged from a primordial source into which the Creator had to breathe life. It is also important to bear in mind that evolutionary theism the predominant teaching in most mainline Protestant seminaries. Hence, it is not at all alien, dangerous opponent to Christianity. Here, you might want to read the writings of the noted Jesuit theologian Teilhard de Chardin, where evolution is God's way of bringing us to the Kingdom of God.

Hoghead1 said:

Bob, again much of your material on TE is way, way off base. For example, I hold that God was incarnate in Christ. Christ is a revelation of God's general MO with the world and that means God is incarnate throughout creation.

Click to expand...

That's pantheism. Try again.

Hoghead1 said:

I still think you are a bit confused on TE, Bob. Fi8rst, the term I would use is "pan-en-theism" (all-in-God) not "pantheism." The latter implies God is just another name for the universe. The former means that the universe is part of the being of God, but not the whole of God. God transcends the universe, just as I transcend my body.

Click to expand...

by comparing this to Christ's incarnation - you make it pantheism when claiming that incarnation of God in all of nature as well (Christ was fully God the Son -- as the 'person'). Even so - have it your way on that.

Of the many gaps in logic to be had in the effort to marry T.E. to the Bible - here is a good one.

Papias said:

OK - what if, hypothetically, I called that first creature to conceive of deities, "Adam"? I don't have to put a finger on exactly when - I can say that whenever it happened, I'll call that person "Adam".

Click to expand...

So in the Bible - Adam is the first human. That first human sins - and so all mankind in doomed to the lake of fire -- see Romans 5 and 6.

in my description I did not say "Adam came from monkey-brains". Rather I took the well known fact that primitives do dine on monkey brains and inserted that into the "first T.E. man's" daily experience. I point out that having this "barely human" so called T.E.-Adam whose only claim to fame is that he was the first to have the capacity to even imagine the abstract concept of "god" -- be the being on whom the entire destiny of the world would rest, the being that would condemn all mankind to the lake of fire, the being that would call for the torture of God the Son on the cross to rescue him from such a horrible result... not only makes a mockery of the Bible AND the Gospel, it makes a mockery of logic and of God. A result no doubt pleasing to many atheists who would love to malign Christianity.

And in T.E. that "first human" is "early human" - has animals for parents. That is pure T.E.

IF God punished all mankind - and Christ had to be tortured on the cross - because "some hominid bashing in his daily ration of monkey brains - happened upon a bad thought one day" - then the atheist's mocking of the gospel is amplified 1000 fold and it is all nonsense.

The idea that all mankind must burn in hell because of some dunderhead barely-able-to-imagine-deity-exists "Adam" ate an apple or "had a bad thought" or "Bashed in the monkey's head the wrong way" -- is the most cruel and unjust unGod-like action thinkable for dooming the entire planet. Which fits the TE paradigm perfectly!

TE makes a mockery of the Bible, of God, of the Gospel - and logic.

This is irrefutable.

Hoghead1 said:

I don't know of anyone into TE who speaks about some barely human Adam upon whose shoulders the entire fate of the human race rests. Where did you come up with this idea?
.

Click to expand...

Are you saying you don't know about the conversation posted here?

Hoghead1 said:

The Virgin Birth has always been a problem for theologians, TE or otherwise. Does it literally mean, no sex. Not all biblical scholars would agree with that. They would take the term "virgin" to mean that Mary had no sex prior to being married. After that, no, it is not claiming Christ was somehow sexlessly produced in Mary. Also, the Virgin Birth is not in Mark, which suggests that it is a later addition to Christian thinking. .

Click to expand...

That is outright denial of the Christian doctrine on the virgin birth - T.E.'s would be wise to sit up and "take notice" of where that downward path has led you.

I do not deny that your position is consistent with T.E. that is after all "Theistic" evolutionism and not "Christian evolution" in that it is ready made for anyone who believes in some sort of deity no matter what religion and it does not demand orthodox Christian views.

Hoghead1 said:

The fact of the matter is that there was and is considerable debate over what exactly the Virgin Birth means. This is not a matter specific to TE people.
.

Click to expand...

Can you name any large T.E. - sized segment of Christianity that repudiates the virgin birth in that same way - but also does not accept T.E.??? (so then not 4-guys-in-a-dorm-room)

Hoghead1 said:

The notion that Scripture was not intended to be an accurate geophysical witness goes way back into Christian history. Augustine wrote a major work on the topic, titled "Genesis in the Literal Sense." He argued that the plain meaning of Genesis was not at all the way God created. .

Click to expand...

Augustine argued that 7 day was waayyyyyyy toooooo lonnnnnnggg for God to make earth, sun and moon and all life on earth. He took his "external preference" to the text to try and argue that such a lonnnnng time frame like 7 literal days must really be 7 seconds or 7 instants in time.

Hoghead1 said:

The reason the reference to days is in Genesis is that God realized we can think only in terms of time and therefore God accommodated himself to our level of understanding. Calvin took a similar stance. God has to talk "baby talk" to us because of the inferior nature of our minds. Calvin stressed that God did not intend Scripture to be a lesson in astronomy. The flat earth, etc., were simply ways God had of accommodating himself to our feeble intellects, talking 'baby talk" to us. Hence, my claim that Scripture was not intended to be an accurate geophysical witness is very much part and parcel of historical Christianity. .

Click to expand...

your argument now takes the form "Yes the author intended 7 literal days because humans are too stupid to understand time that is longer than 7 days".

That same author said Adam lived 900 years. Is that because humans that could not understand time longer than 7 day suddenly turned into humans that could not understand human life span for one individual to ever be less than 900 years???

As I just explained we use the term "pan-en-theism," not "pantheism." There is a major difference. "Pantheism" often means a view where God is just another name for the universe. "Pan-en-theism" means that the universe is part of the being of God, but that there are aspects of God than transcend the universe, analogous to the way my mind can transcend my body.
Can I think of persons would deny the Virgin Birth but aren't into TE? That's what I hear you asking. I'm wondering why. But OK. Deists did not believe in the Virgin Birth. Many of our founding fathers were Deists. Thomas Jefferson, who was a Deist, did not believe in the Virgin Birth. The writer of Mark probably did not believe in it, as it is never mentioned. Paul may not have believed in it, as he never mentions it. Christian gnostics did not believe in it. In biblical studies, the issue is how to translate the passage. Should it be Virgin , in our sense of the term, or just "young woman."
Yu are misunderstanding Augustine. He did not say seven days was too long; he argued that God is atemporal and therefore dos snot work through movements in time. Creation took place all at once, in in etensionless instance, not half a second long, not a millionth of a second long, zero seconds long, to time lapse at all.

"Your argument now takes the form..."? I never gave any argument here. What are you talking about? At least, wait to her what I might say, before jumping the gun and putting words into my mouth.

Hoghead1 said:

As I just explained we use the term "pan-en-theism," not "pantheism." There is a major difference. "Pantheism" often means a view where God is just another name for the universe. "Pan-en-theism" means that the universe is part of the being of God, but that there are aspects of God than transcend the universe, analogous to the way my mind can transcend my body.

Click to expand...

True - but you equated this with the incarnation of Christ and in the incarnation of Christ - Christ is not "part of God the Son". So your example would be "pantheism" if in fact you were applying that same idea to "God incarnate in nature" - which was my only point. I have no objection to your calling your belief whatever you wish no matter the illustration.

In the case of Panentheism the reason Christianity does not embrace that - is because God is before all things - and in the Bible God is not IN the tree - rather He is the Creator and sustainer of the tree.

Very different from "God is In the tree". Only as a born again Christian is God "in you". And only because of the Gospel.

Can I think of persons would deny the Virgin Birth but aren't into TE? That's what I hear you asking. I'm wondering why. But OK. Deists did not believe in the Virgin Birth.

Click to expand...

Theists and deists are not Christian at all. Certainly there are a great many religions that do not accept the Virgin Birth. The point was to find someone claiming to be a Christian - as in some special cases of T.E. that rejected the Virgin Birth and are as large a group in Christianity as the T.E. group claiming Christianity.

The reason for this is that it is much more "surprising" to find people inside Christianity denying the virigin birth than the mundane ho-hum occasion of finding someone outside of Christianity denying the virgin birth.

Many of our founding fathers were Deists. Thomas Jefferson, who was a Deist, did not believe in the Virgin Birth. The writer of Mark probably did not believe in it, as it is never mentioned. Paul may not have believed in it, as he never mentions it. Christian gnostics did not believe in it. In biblical studies, the issue is how to translate the passage. Should it be Virgin , in our sense of the term, or just "young woman."

Click to expand...

The Angel states clearly that Mary was to give birth as a virgin due to the holy spirit and so also does Mary point this problem out to the Angel -- and her husband has to be 'convinced' that such a thing is even true. Your wild speculation in the Bible does not "survive the text". But it does "survive T.E." that has as its chief aim to find new ways to find the Bible "unreliable" and to find "stories" that fit what an atheist would consider "science" in the story told.

Yu are misunderstanding Augustine. He did not say seven days was too long; he argued that God is atemporal and therefore dos snot work through movements in time.

Click to expand...

He argued that it took place in an instant - not in any laps of time.


"(God) spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation"
The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor (1982), Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 33, paragraph 51–52, p. 141, italics in the original. New York: Newman Press.

"Whoever, then, does not accept the meaning that my limited powers have been able to discover or conjecture but seeks in the enumeration of the days of creation a different meaning, which might be understood not in the prophetical or figurative sense, but literally and more aptly, in interpreting the works of creation, let him search and find a solution with God’s help. I myself may possibly discover some other meaning more in harmony with the words of Scripture."
The Literal Meaning of Genesis, in Lavallee, Louis. 1989. Augustine on the Creation Days, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32, no. 4:464.


no time lapse - but instant creation and a flat denial of some long time process be it 7 days or 70 billion years - is the direction Augustine was going. That T.E.'s think Augustine is making their case is inexplicable! Augustine does not argue that this is the case due to the language of Genesis 1 and 2. He argues it for his own external-to-Genesis-1 reasons.

in Christ,

Bob

Hoghead1 said:

The reason the reference to days is in Genesis is that God realized we can think only in terms of time and therefore God accommodated himself to our level of understanding. Calvin took a similar stance. God has to talk "baby talk" to us because of the inferior nature of our minds. Calvin stressed that God did not intend Scripture to be a lesson in astronomy. The flat earth, etc., were simply ways God had of accommodating himself to our feeble intellects, talking 'baby talk" to us. Hence, my claim that Scripture was not intended to be an accurate geophysical witness is very much part and parcel of historical Christianity. .

Click to expand...

your argument now takes the form "Yes the author intended 7 literal days because humans are too stupid to understand time that is longer than 7 days".

That same author said Adam lived 900 years. Is that because humans that could not understand time longer than 7 day suddenly turned into humans that could not understand human life span for one individual to ever be less than 900 years???

Hoghead1 said:

I never gave any argument here. What are you talking about? At least, wait to her what I might say, before jumping the gun and putting words into my mouth.

Click to expand...

Those words in your first quote above give the meaning as stated -- more transparently obvious than you may have at first supposed as it turns out.

in Christ,
Bob

Bob, I still do not follow you point about "pantheism." I can only say that we prefer the term "pan-en-theism," and have given you good reason for that. You should at least respect the labels others use. You are a newbie here and do not know this material well enough to try and override us.
You say the Bible claims that God is not "in" things. Well, Jer. 23:23 clearly states that God is omnipresent throughout ration and that means "in" all things. Another important passage is I Cor. 15:28. Certainly the opening of John makes it clear that all things are "in" God, which in turn , means that God is in all things. God and the universe are one in Scripture.
Next, you make the assumption tat deists and theists, I guess you mean evolutionary theists, are not Christian. That is a very dubious assumption. I am into evolutionary theism and I certainly consider myself a Christian and so do many others who share my views. Now, if you feel you know more about Christianity than we do and it is your prerogative to sit in judgment on others, I think you've really got it coming. You are way out of line, especially in a serious theological dialogue, where you are not supposed to sit in judgment on the spirituality of others.
You asked for people other than TE people who have doubts about the Virgin Birth and I told you. I also pointed out there are some real translation issues here, which you have yet to address. You also failed to address the fact that M ark dos snot speak of the Virgin Birth and neither does Paul. How come if it was such a major doctrine?
Also, please read more carefully what I said. I said that Augustine claimed that God crated the world in an extensionless instant, no time passage at all. According to Augustine, God does not work through corporeal movement sin time. And please don't bother to cite translations of "Genesis in the Literal Sense" to me. I and a major Augustine translator already translated key portions of this work years ago, though we never published it.

Bottom line, Bob: Judge not, that you be not judged. You like to do a lot of finger pointing here at myself and others and then accuse us of not being good Christians. I think you should clean up the mess in your own house first. You are Seventh Day Adventist and your church has been seriously called into question as to whether or not it is Christian. There re at least three major, fundamental; tenets of your church that straight-laced Bible-believing Christians have called into question. One is that your church professes that Christ is the archangel Michael, which is anathema in most Christian circles. Two, is that your church blindly accepts Ellen White as the infallible interpreter of Scripture . Three is that your church professes justification through perfection and works righteousness, which is also anathema according to traditional Christianity. So, again, before you point the finger at others, take a good, hard look at the situation you are in.

Hoghead1 said:

Bob, I still do not follow you point about "pantheism." I can only say that we prefer the term "pan-en-theism,"

Click to expand...

I don't doubt you on that preference. I was just commenting about the fact that you say it is is the incarnation as in God being incarnate in Christ.

Hoghead1 said:

You say the Bible claims that God is not "in" things. Well, Jer. 23:23 clearly states that God is omnipresent throughout ration and that means "in" all things.

Click to expand...

The text does not say that God is "in all things" - you are quoting "you" not Jer 23.

Jer 23:23
"“Am I a God near at hand,” says the Lord,
“And not a God afar off?"

A good place to find a text that does not say "God is in all things"

Another important passage is I Cor. 15:28.

Click to expand...

"28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."

A great place to not find "God is IN all things" but at the same time a great place to HAVE put it in there if it were true.

So then the text does not say "That God may be In all things" - rather it is talking about domain and subjection - so that all things are subjected to God.

Certainly the opening of John makes it clear that all things are "in" God, which in turn , means that God is in all things.

Click to expand...

The Gospel of John - another great place NOT to find "God is IN all things" rather that God CREATED all things. Man may "create" a painting - does not mean the painter/artist is IN the painting personally. Only that his genius is reflected by it.

John 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men

God and the universe are one in Scripture.

Click to expand...

Not in any text you have quoted so far. So far that is only found in your own prose.

Next, you make the assumption tat deists and theists, I guess you mean evolutionary theists, are not Christian.

Click to expand...

On the contrary - It makes the case that nothing in T.E. is specifically Christian - nothing in it is Orthodox Christianity therefore a great many non-Christian groups can sign up for it. And denial of the Virgin Birth, the world wide flood, the 7 day creation week is a perfect fit for non-Christian religions... and a perfect fit for T.E.

That is a very dubious assumption. I am into evolutionary theism and I certainly consider myself a Christian and so do many others who share my views.

Click to expand...

Your claim is to be Christian "in spite of your belief in T.E." not "because of it".

in Christ,

Bob

Hoghead1 said:

The fact of the matter is that there was and is considerable debate over what exactly the Virgin Birth means. This is not a matter specific to TE people.
The notion that Scripture was not intended to be an accurate geophysical witness goes way back into Christian history. Augustine wrote a major work on the topic, titled "Genesis in the Literal Sense." He argued that the plain meaning of Genesis was not at all the way God created. God does not work through movements in time and so created the world in one instant, not six days. The reason the reference to days is in Genesis is that God realized we can think only in terms of time and therefore God accommodated himself to our level of understanding. Calvin took a similar stance. God has to talk "baby talk" to us because of the inferior nature of our minds. Calvin stressed that God did not intend Scripture to be a lesson in astronomy. The flat earth, etc., were simply ways God had of accommodating himself to our feeble intellects, talking 'baby talk" to us. Hence, my claim that Scripture was not intended to be an accurate geophysical witness is very much part and parcel of historical Christianity.

Click to expand...

Hoghead1 said:

Also, please read more carefully what I said. I said that Augustine claimed that God crated the world in an extensionless instant, no time passage at all. According to Augustine, God does not work through corporeal movement sin time. .

Click to expand...

Indeed Augustine argues that his own statement is out of harmony with the text of scripture in Genesis 1 and that it is his own external bias that he brings to the text of Genesis 1 that results in his out-of-harmony wrenching of the meaning in the text.

"(God) spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created. Creation, therefore, did not take place slowly in order that a slow development might be implanted in those things that are slow by nature; nor were the ages established at plodding pace at which they now pass. Time brings about the development of these creatures according to the laws of their numbers, but there was no passage of time when they received these laws at creation"
The Literal Meaning of Genesis, translated by John Hammond Taylor (1982), Vol. 1, Book 4, Chapter 33, paragraph 51–52, p. 141, italics in the original. New York: Newman Press.

"Whoever, then, does not accept the meaning that my limited powers have been able to discover or conjecture but seeks in the enumeration of the days of creation a different meaning, which might be understood not in the prophetical or figurative sense, but literally and more aptly, in interpreting the works of creation, let him search and find a solution with God’s help. I myself may possibly discover some other meaning more in harmony with the words of Scripture."
The Literal Meaning of Genesis, in Lavallee, Louis. 1989. Augustine on the Creation Days, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32, no. 4:464.


no time lapse - but instant creation and a flat denial of some long time process be it 7 days or 70 billion years - is the direction Augustine was going. That T.E.'s think Augustine is making their case is inexplicable! Augustine does not argue that this is the case due to the language of Genesis 1 and 2. He argues it for his own external-to-Genesis-1 reasons.

Hoghead1 said:

And please don't bother to cite translations of "Genesis in the Literal Sense" to me. I and a major Augustine translator already translated key portions of this work years ago, though we never published it

Click to expand...

Sadly for you in that case Ex 20:11 "exists" as God Himself summarized the details in Genesis 1:2-2:3 quite to the contrary of those imagining that Genesis 1 does not describe a literal 7 day week. The expanded form in Ex 20:8-11 makes this "irrefutable in legal code".

And as for the "kind of literature" that it is - in Genesis 1:2-2:3

==================================

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘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 (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. 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.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not.