01-08-2008, 01:44 PM
|
| Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRoper  Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie There is no good exegetical reason to think that the days of Genesis 1 refer to anything other than ordinary days. | Quote:
Originally Posted by DMcFadden I am VERY sensitive to the contextual clues you find raising the question as to the genre of the Genesis creation accounts, particularly in view of the presence of symbolic elements. However, among those of a young earth perspective, the absence of the sun until the fourth day does not prove a problem. Using conventional language to describe a roughly 24 hour period of time employing the standard "morning and evening" as the conventional day marker is not a problem. I would be interested if you have biblical or extra-biblical evidence of "morning and evening" as meaning anything other than a 24 hour period anywhere else? Besides, all that is needed is light, not a sun. | A day without a sun is anything but ordinary. It would have to be an extraordinary day.
[qoute]Could the correct interpretation of Genesis 1-3 be the framework view? Yes, old earth views of various sorts are the majority position taught in most seminaries today. I just do not believe that to be the best interpretation and see a number of pernicious consequences flowing from that type of hermeneutic. |
I am talking about a day of ordinary length.
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
|