BobVigneault
Bawberator
The Bawb, The Jacob, The Josh, The et al.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't doubt that these are good people. I have never made value-judgments on the character of non-YECers. But I can turn it around and say that I know so many good people who are YECers and just can't imagine they would be theologically wrong.
Look, I'm a profoundly ignorant Arkansan here, but I just don't see how OECers can account for a non-literal, quasi-mystical, thousand year expanded creation that is figurative in language which has this sudden transition into the historical, literal narrative of the Fall.
I too wonder why some get so worked up in defending the literalness of "day". We all agree that there are many many instances in scripture that are not meant to be "literal". As has been said it need not be a threat to biblical accuracy.
Because of the waw conversive (consecutive). In 99.9% of the cases it is used in Scripture it is chronological narrative.
But the sword cuts both ways. Revelation 21-22 is obviously poetic. That means it very well could not be history, which means it is probably not real. Ergo, heaven is not a place (contra Belinda Carlyle) but a poetic expression of man's deepest longing.
Why? If you've a point to make, make it.
Look, I'm a profoundly ignorant Arkansan here, but I just don't see how OECers can account for a non-literal, quasi-mystical, thousand year expanded creation that is figurative in language which has this sudden transition into the historical, literal narrative of the Fall. At what point does the rendering of the text change and denote such a transition? I'm with the Bawb, the Jacob, et al on this 'n.
So when, then, does the text between Gen. 2 and Gen. 3 indicate a transition from figurative or day age, to historical narrative?Why? If you've a point to make, make it.
My point is simply this, what role do you see redactors having in the completed canon? Moses did not write all of Genesis hence we need to rethink our approach to the Pentateuch and how we understand it. Every genre of Canon needs to be interpreted using rules specific to that genre, hence the need to determine the genre of Genesis 1-2. Until we do this, we are on shakey ground indeed.
Are you likening the Creation Account, to the Historical Narrative of Jesus saying, "I am the door...Good Shepherd...Bread of Life?"Jesus on His way to the cross says I am the door. Does a non-literal approach to door lead anyone to doubt the historicity of the cricifixion?
Scripture also teaches that one day is as a 1000 years...
So the first three days could be three thousand years..I personally hold to the six days of creation..
I had to answer a question in Science one year explaining how the earth could show such an old age if it is only a few thousand years (using Biblical references)..and I used an arguement about the one day being as a thousand years..if one day is as a thousand years, and there have been X number of days that would be X number of thousands of years that have past..making the earth old..the professor was actually intrigued by my response, as it was one she hadn't heard before but it made her look up the verses I refered to. And when we include the sudden flood, and receeding waters that too would effect what the age of the earth appears to be..
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Why is there a debate?
There is great debate because the text itself is not clear. As Mason has pointed out, Augustine, to which we could add a number of Greek Fathers, saw the creation account for what it was, an account of creation. It is not a scientific treatise. We need to look at the story behind the account, not least its relation with Ancient Near East creation accounts as regards Mythopoetic language and thought forms. Further, we need to take into account the work of redactors.
Look, I'm a profoundly ignorant Arkansan here, but I just don't see how OECers can account for a non-literal, quasi-mystical, thousand year expanded creation that is figurative in language which has this sudden transition into the historical, literal narrative of the Fall.
I am not OEC but in your estimation who wrote Genesis? (Aside from God)
I too wonder why some get so worked up in defending the literalness of "day". We all agree that there are many many instances in scripture that are not meant to be "literal". As has been said it need not be a threat to biblical accuracy.
Look, I'm a profoundly ignorant Arkansan here, but I just don't see how OECers can account for a non-literal, quasi-mystical, thousand year expanded creation that is figurative in language which has this sudden transition into the historical, literal narrative of the Fall.
I am not OEC but in your estimation who wrote Genesis? (Aside from God)
Joseph
I am not OEC but in your estimation who wrote Genesis? (Aside from God)
Joseph
Then He opened to them all things written concerning Himself in the Law of Joseph, and the Prophets and the Psalms
Well, it doesn't relate. The Gospel account to which you allude is a historical account of Jesus saying, "I am the Door." So, within the context, it is understood that He is obviously being figurative concerning being a Door. On the other hand, the Creation account is not where we read of Moses telling this story to people. Rather, it, in itself, is a historical narrative of Creation.Are you likening the Creation Account, to the Historical Narrative of Jesus saying, "I am the door...Good Shepherd...Bread of Life?"
No, comparing day to bread.
Well, it doesn't relate. The Gospel account to which you allude is a historical account of Jesus saying, "I am the Door." So, within the context, it is understood that He is obviously being figurative concerning being a Door. On the other hand, the Creation account is not where we read of Moses telling this story to people. Rather, it, in itself, is a historical narrative of Creation.No, comparing day to bread.
We agree that Genesis is an historic narrative of creation, I do not know why you would think those who question the intended meaning of "day" would think otherwise. And one man's "obvious" is not another man's. The account does have a peculiar structure and does present harmonization difficulties when forced to be read like a logical science text.
The account does have a peculiar structure and does present harmonization difficulties when forced to be read like a logical science text.
1. Maybe (but not really).
2. Who's doing the forcing of reading here?
There seems to be eisogesis for OECer. I mean, seriously, who's gonna read Genesis 1-3 and gather the Day Age theory exegetically and according to the Analogy of Scripture minus thoughts purported from elsewhere externally?
History implies chronology. Thus the use of the waw (I have yet to see anyone deal with this). Why is the use of the waw in the rest of Genesis historic but the use of the waw in 1-2 (where it is more predominantly used than anywhere else in the Bible), not historic?
History implies chronology. Thus the use of the waw (I have yet to see anyone deal with this). Why is the use of the waw in the rest of Genesis historic but the use of the waw in 1-2 (where it is more predominantly used than anywhere else in the Bible), not historic?
May be you would like to set forth your argument using the waw with supportive texts. I take it you are simply refering to the repetition of "and".
Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.
Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.
I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.
Gentlemen:
I keep reading about difficulties of harmonization, uniqueness of arrangement etc. Please indicate from the text where these things occur.
You're exactly right. The word waw simply indicates things happened in a specific order. No one is denying that. The only issue is the length of time of each day...
Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.
I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.
Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.
I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.
If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the waw signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.
I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession.
Gentlemen:
I keep reading about difficulties of harmonization, uniqueness of arrangement etc. Please indicate from the text where these things occur.
From an earlier post by AV1611:
Day 1: Let there be light (1:3).
Day 4: Let there be lights (1:14).
Day 2: Let there be an expanse to separate water from water (1:6).
Day 5: Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20).
Day 3: Let dry land appear (1:9); Let the land produce vegetation (1:11).
Day 6: Let the land produce living creatures (1:24); Let us make man (1:26); I give you every seed bearing plant...and every tree that has fruit with seed in it...for food (1:29).
Notably, creation of light occurs 3 days before the creation of the universe (Day 1 and Day 4). Also, the narrative ends after God rests in the first part of Genesis 2, and then picks up again in greater detail and continues with the Garden account and the Fall. It's a unique structure, to say the least....