How do you young earthers know

Such extreme lengths to harmonize are amazing. William of Occam would be quite amused.

 

Never claimed to be! However, if it is a false dichotomy then prove it by taking my challenge and harmonizing not merely His words about Genesis 1 but the words of those who wrote by inspiration! I think they are my stars on my debate team and will remain so until someone can harmonize their non-literal intepretation of Genesis 1 with their words.

 

Perhaps he would be amused but his mouth would be shut by the facts of the text.

 

Here is the bottom line. Either you do or you don't accept the Bible as the inspired Word of God. If you don't then it is useless to talk to you about it because we do not have any common foundation of authority.

Either you do or you don't believe that scripture is the best interpretation of scripture. If you don't, then it is pointless to continue our discussion because we do not recognize the same authority.

 

Again, can any of you that embrace the poetical non-literal interpretation of Gensis one harmonize your view with the last group of writers below in regard to the frist two groups of texts taken from Genesis one?

A Simple yes or now will do. If yes, then please explain how your view harmonizes with their interpretation of "And God Said" in regard to the creation account.

 

I understand exactly what you wrote. All your other posts on this thread illustrate my point exactly. To quote myself:

 

Bottom line is I shouldn't have even posted on this thread. I refuse to enter debate with non-Christians. If you can't believe God created everything as literally stated in Genesis, you don't believe in the right God.

 

Is poetic literature always, in every point, taken literal? Can poetic literature be taken literal in some points and not literal in others?

I understand your point about Jesus' treatment, but the issue is numbers. As well, are all numbers in poetic literature treated literal?

The reason why you are not in the conversation is that you not attacking the debated issue, but an area where we have 100% agreement among conservatives. Namely, at issue is whether the days of creation when used in parallelism are can ever be taken in a non-literal manner. That is the question you have never addressed. Remember, poetry has literal and non-literal elements, but all elements are important. Making all elements, or other non-debatable elements, non-literal is a straw man. Making all elements literal is also a straw man.

Thus, the question remains:

Can we take poetic literature, where parrellelism is used for numbers, and see them as symbols or representing but not as literal?

If you answer "yes" then the you see why others can disagree but still believe all the world.

If you answer "no" then there will be a myriad of other passages where you must give an explanation that is outside traditional interpretation.

Your challenge is a non-sequitor because poetry has elements of both literal and non-literal statements. That is what poetry is and is not. Thus, your presupposition that it all must be symbolic or all must be literal is irrational. But what you did demonstrate is that there is a parralellism in the text.

Thus, the main question, are numbers in poetry exegetically always taken literal?

 

Why not? A God almighty enough to bring into existence a universe out of nothing would have no problem creating it in such a way that it worked the way He wanted it to. Thus He created plants and trees "whose seed is in itself" (Gen 1.11). He didn't create seeds and wait for them to grow. He created Adam as an adult. So why should He not create the stars, even those millions of light years distant, with their light already shining on the earth? That was their God-given purpose, after all. (Gen. 1.14-16).

 

Matt,

Read my most recent post to Walter and I would be interested in your response. I am a literal 6 day creationist, but to call BB Warfield a non-Christian is, in my opinion, intellectually out of bounds. However, do you agree that poetic literature means that numbers can be taken symbolically and still be within the realm of solid exegetical law? That is the point of this discussion and if we answer this question, it could be helpful to seeing what is heretical and what is not heretical about modern interpretations of creation.

Thanks,

 

.


You are pitting B.B. Warfield and other erring uninspirred men against Jesus Christ and INSPIRED writers of the scripture.

Here is your problem. In my challenge David, who is the most prominent Biblical writer that used Poetry inteprets the Genesis account of creation in chapter one as literal and historical events. David is the master of poetical language is he not? Peter interprets Genesis one account of creation as literal historical narrative. Jesus interprets Genesis one as literal historical narrative. Moses treats it as NON-POETICAL when he applies the Sabbath command to Genesis one. The Sabbath law has no intellectual basis apart from a literal and historial understanding of Genesis one especially in regard to the numbered days.


NO BIBLICAL WRITER interprets Genesis one as poetical literature and NO BIBLICAL WRITER ever uses numbers as in Genesis one in poetical fashion - NONE!!!

Hence, this whole discussion about the use of poetical numbers is fabricated out of unbelieving heretical minds who have nothing better to do but attack the Word of God.

The reason you or no other skeptic will take my challenge is because it is obvious that inspired men do not share your doubts, your hypotheses, your criticisms or your ideas that Genesis One is to be understood poetical but rather is to be understood as a literal historical narrative of what God actually said and did in seven literal and historical days.

Find ONE EXAMPLE in Biblical literature where the Biblical phraseolgy "the evening and the morning were the FIRST day, etc.," is ever used other than as literal historical narrative?

The OP does not concern your numerical poetic issue at all! The OP is how do you know that the earth is not billions of years old?

 

Again, how does your theories stand up against how INSPIRED men interpreted "And God Said" content of Genesis One?

Jesus interpreted Genesis 1:26 as literal non-poetic historical narrative.

David interpreted Genesis one as literal non-poetic historical narrative.

Peter interpreted Genesis one as literal non-poetic historical narrative.

God Himself interprets Genesis one as literal non-poetical historical narrative as the basis for the Fourth Commandment.

 

I think you misunderstand my purpose. My purpose is not to show that they are right, but that their interpretation is a legitimate Biblical interpretation that can be held. I hold to a 6 day creation time, but I recognize their arguments as valid.

Let me note concerning your objections. First, there are times when literal numbers are applied symbolically and symbolic numbers are applied literally. Daniel's 70 weeks, by all sides of this debate, is applied both symbolically and by some applied literally, though all recognize it begins as symbolic. Jesus in the Desert for 40 days was both literal and symbolic. The number of man being 666 is purely symbolic but with real application.

Thus, the question still remains whether you can have a poetic use of a number as non-literal. I believe you can have literal application for the non-literal number that is non-symbolic, but the number itself can be symbolic. Like in prophetic literature, symbolic numbers are treated as literal in other places and literal numbers are oftentimes used symbolically.

Thus, I do not think what I am saying is outside the established rules of exegesis. While I am an adamant 6 day creationist, I can see how conservative scholars can make a conservative case for a non-literal 6 day creation period.

 

The legitimacy is determined by context not by abritrary application. They have no legitimate application to Genesis one. My challenge proves they have no legitmate claim on Genesis one.

 

Walter,

I can point you to a number of commentaries that are 6 day believers who would disagree with you. As well, you cited application texts of the genesis 1 itself, thus that would be an application. Are you refuting your own citations of application?

 

You can point me to a number of commentaries that take the position that context does not determine hermeneutical application????? Well, I guess we can find complete nonsense in any commentary by anyone. They have no legitimacy for such an application in Genesis one - the context will not allow it. Other inspired writers repudiate it.

My oh my! It is the citations that confirm my hermeneutical application rather than refuting it. It is those citations that refute your theory that allows for the legitimacy of that application to Genesis one.

 

Again, you have yet to engage in the exegesis. You pointed out verses that everyone agrees with in order to prove your point. You are not arguing the exegesis.

Thus, my questions have never been answered. Is it appropriate to take numbers in poetry as figurative? I contend they are and I have shown specific examples of where this is the case. I have shown where figurative numbers become symbolic and symbolic numbers are used as figurative in other places. Thus, your arguments do not carry any weight, as they don't argue against the issue.

Thus, can numbers in poetry be seen as symbolic. That is my entire point, and my main point. If you argue yes, then you agree with me that this is a legitimate form of exegesis. Whether or not this applies to these verses is the question, and one which we agree. However, my point is less than proving, but just showing it is legitimate.

 

Gentleman,

The repeated phrase "And God said" throughout Genesis chapter one is the basis/origin/source for the remaining content of Genesis One. Everything else is either the content of what He said and/or the results of what He did in relation to what He first said.

The contention of some on this forum is that this CONTENT of words and correlating conseqences to what "God said" are merely the symbolic expression of an EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS OF BILLIONS OF YEARS. For non-believers it is the anti-God expression of true origins. For those who believe in God but try to harmonize it with science so-called it is the expression of Theistic Evloution.

However, Peter is familiar with a process versus a creation and denies that creation occurred by process but rather "by the Word of the Lord" in contrast to the process of time from that point to the present.

David is very familiar with poetic langauge but denies that creation was due to a process but rather came into existence by God's spoken word.

Jesus is very familiar with poetic language but deals with Genesis 1:26 as a literal historical non-poetic, non-symbolic creative act by God.

The writer of Hebrews deals with types and symbols throughout his epistle but when it comes to the creation he demands that it can only be received "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" thus denying creation was an EXPLAINABLE PROCESS.

 

Your question is rediculous! First, you must establish there is a context that provides a reasonable basis to consider that question. Inspired commentators deny there is a reasonable basis for such a consideration. The wording of Genesis one does not provide a reasonable basis to even consider it. The consistent usage of "evening and morning" in Biblcial literature as attached to the numerical days does not provide a reasonable basis.

You are not promoting exegetical possibilities but eisgetical rationale into this context.

 

Do you know the difference between exegesis versus eisgesis? You do not randomly select a text and then ASSUME that a particular valid exegetical application fits that text! That is eisgetical rationale. You must first establish that the context DEMANDS its consideration.

You have NOTHING in the context that would DEMAND even the consideration of such an exegetical principle of interpretation! Furthermore, you have inspired commentators denying in the clearest terms that Genesis one is to be taken in any other manner than literal historical narrative.

You have NO BASIS to interpret the numericals found in Genesis one as figurative as the exegetical form is NEVER used anywhere in Biblical literature outside of historical literal narrative forms.

You are practicing eisgetical THINKING in your very approach to this chapter.