View Single Post
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 01-08-2008, 01:45 PM
DMcFadden's Avatar
DMcFadden DMcFadden is offline now.
McFadderator Minimizing
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: San Gabriel, CA
Posts: 4,074
Thanks: 823
Thanked 1,333 Times in 782 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by panta dokimazete View Post
I just do not see a rigid adherence to time principles in Scripture. I am good with a day being 24 hours, I just see that there is lot's of "room" for a timeless God to move within the "space" of an "hour" - that is - time is relative.
When "day" is used with limiting descriptors (first, second, "morning and evening," etc.), I cannot find ANYplace where it does not mean a normal day. The burden is on those who allege greater elasticity of meaning to substantiate their view.

The Reformers fought against the opposite problem. Arguing that it took a full six days to create ran counter to the prevaling ideololgy of the day that saw creation as a more instantaneous example of ex nihilo. Luther argued for taking the creation as six days because the Bible said so contrary to the scholars of his day. I hold to six days contrary to the scholars of our day for the very same reason . . . the Bible says so.

And, Daniel is correct. Look at Exodus 20:11 and try to interpret it without the presumption that Genesis 1 describes ordinary days. It just doesn't work.

BTW - Joel S. comments . . .
Quote:
And yet great scholars (yes, even Reformed scholars) believe they have "good exegetical reason" to not be committed to the literal 6-day reading. I'm not for one side or the other...I simply haven't studied it enough. But I am suggesting that perhaps the rhetoric should be turned down a bit. There are serious arguments made for other positions from Scripture not "unbelieving science" by reputable Reformed scholars. If you want to disagree with their arguments, that's cool with me, I need to see both sides. But don't act like they don't have anything worth hearing at all.
I hope that I have not been perceived as denying this insight or in calling great scholars names. My admission that this was my position for at least 40 years before moving to the normal sense view 2 years ago should demonstrate that in my mind at least, this is an intramural conversation between orthodox brethren. Both of us affirm the full inspiration and authority of Scripture. We just disagree on the right application of hermeneutical principles to a particular passage.
__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DMcFadden For This Useful Post:
BobVigneault (01-08-2008), KMK (01-22-2008), PuritanCovenanter (01-10-2008)