How do you young earthers know

Walter,

You keep going deeper and deeper into irrationality. Just on the face of it, is it right to consider numbers as symbolic in poetic literature? Is that ever valid exegesis?

 

Provide me ONE exegetical based argument that would even INFER that anything but a literal historical narrative is being expressed?

Don't provide me with a selective interpretation for that inference but rather an exegetical demand that leaves no other valid interpretation.

 

Please show ancient writings that say they believed this. This is one of those liberal fallacies that are based on a denial of the reasonableness of the text. There is no actual ancient Hebrew writings that describe such a cosmology.

They wrote the truth of God. There are countless examples of scientific fact in the Old Testament which could not possibly have been known by people at the time, except by direct revelation.

 

You just don't get it do you???? Your whole question is based upon PRESUMPTION in regard to Genesis one. You have NO EXEGETICAL RIGHT to even ask the question in regard to Genesis One.

You have no exegetical basis to infer Genesis One is poetic literature.

If you are simply asking IN GENERAL can numbers be used symbolic, then, the answer is yes. But if you are asking IN SPECIFIC if a particular text can be legitimately considered as a poetic passage and use of symbolic numbers then that must first be established by exegetical criteria that demands it and YOU DON'T HAVE SUCH GROUNDS for Genesis one.

 

If I tell my children plainly that I bought them Christmas presents, but they don't believe me because they cannot actually see them, why does that make me a liar, again? Wouldn't that be a mark against my children, for not believing my words, rather than a mark against me?

Your reasoning is specious. God told us how and when He did it. For you to doubt Him, then call Him a liar because you have faith in yourself and your own reasoning ability, instead of Him, is sickening to say the least.

 

Genesis one provides in the clearest terms that God spoke creation into existence rather than mere symbolism of a PROCESS OF EVOLUTION OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS.

David in the clearest terms interprets Genesis one to have been SPOKEN INTO EXISTENCE rather than a PROCESS OF BILLIONS of years.

Peter in the clearest terms interpreets Genesis one to have benn SPOKEN into existence rather than mere symbolism of a PROCESS OF EVOLTION OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS.

The Writer of Hebrews in the clearest terms interprets Genesis one to have been SPOKEN into existence rather than mere symbolism of a PROCESS OF EVLUTION OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS.

Jesus in the clearest terms recognized Genesis 1:26 as literal historical narrative of the actual point of existence of male and female rather than a PROCESS OF EVOLUTION OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS.

God in the clearest terms possible recognized Genesis 1-2:3 as literal historical narrative that occurred in seven literal days when giving the fourth commandment rather than a PROCESS OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS.

The only kind of people who interpret Genesis one in symbolic langauge or poetical language for a PROCESS OVER BILLIONS OF YEARS are those who either reject the inspiration of Scriptures or reject inspired commentators of Genesis one which is nothing more or less than rejecting the inspiration of the Scriptures on a smaller scale.

 

The Bible claims to be God's Word and claims to be "inspired" (God breathed). It is that claim we are called on by the scriptures to believe. Jesus quoted the scriptures to support his claims and you think his followers should not??

Isaiah 8:20 speaks directly to your position and unbeleif.

BTW Isa.8:20 is true of Scripture in general, regardless of what stage of its development in history. It is true of any written and spoken revelation by God's prophet at any time, whether Isaiah or Peter.

 

There are other writings from pagan civilizations that viewed the origin of the world in such a primitive fashion. However, that idea is foreign to ancient Hebrew writings. Paul argues that Biblical revelation gives the jews the advantage over these pagan gentile civilizations (Rom. 3:1-2). The Genesis account stands distinct and far superior to any ancient pagan concepts of origins.

 

The whole argument is that Jesus and other writers referenced Genesis 1 inliteral fashion, and the detailed use of "day and night" sound literal. I always tended to go along with this.

But while much is being made of this, don't forget other literal sounding terms such as "THREE days and THREE nights". Most of the same "orthodox" scholars and believers (including perhaps all the fundamentalist "literalists") hold this to be figurative of basically, parts if three days. That's the only way to get "3 days" out of Friday evening to Sunday morning. But "days AND nights" made it sound so "literal"!

Also, one of Daniel's propecies mentions "2300 days", and I remember reading that it literally meant "evenings and mornings". Yet this is not interpreted literally either. For one thing, it was said to refer to evening and morning offerings, and on top of this, it's usually interpreted as 2300 years.

And then, the arguments about the firmament. The notion of an actual dome is now dismissed as nonliteral, because current observation obviously speaks against it. Yet the notion of the water above (with the floodgates" allowing it through) sounds just as literal as the 6 days, and the only thing you have to go against that is observation.
geocentricism is another one, and there are actually "Geocentric" sites that say the same things you are saying about those who "Put more faith in apparent observation than in the literal Word of God".

Now, Dr. Walter, If I saw correctly, you were arguing for a literal 3 days and nights? I had peeked at some of those threads, and that's what it looked like, but you would think it would be the other way around: that you took the traditional view, and Chowmah and the others would take the 72 hour view, since many sabbatarian groups take that view.

So if I saw right, over there, then this point will not mean anything to you, because you would be consistent with it. Still, it goes to show that this whole thing about non-literalists not being Christian, "attacking" Jesus and the Word of God, etc. is way off base. That because, the issue is not quite as clear as you think it is.

The whole "Jesus referenced 6 literal days, so if you don't believe it, you don't believe in Him" arument falls, because He also references three days and three nights, and whether you take the nonliteral view of that or not, most scholars and orthodox and fundamentalist do. So any argument about the faith of a Genesis nonliteralist would hold for them as well.

Even if you try to argue that context determines a nonlieteral reading of the other instances, still, the point it, it is possible for people to not be aware of the context. So the argument shoudn't be on how much the terms are used, and then assumed to be "literal". The debate is whether there might be a context

 

walter,

There is a point in which it could be used as poetic. I noted the parrallelisms that existed, the repeated lines, verse 27 (which no commentary denies is poetic). All these lend some scholars to say this is a matter of poetry. This section does differ from all the other prose aspects of Genesis. Granted, I noted before, that it does lack the tightly controlled prosodic parallelisms that is evident in some other poetry. However, there are parallelisms on the major themes to the nuances, to the division of the days. All indicate of possible poetic force in the Hebrew.

Again, my question remains. Is it justified that numbers are used symbolically in poetic literature? That is the base by which I am arguing. We can disagree on other elements, but we cannot even advance this discussion unless we have agreement on that one issue.

If you answer "yes", then if Genesis is poetic (which is a debatable issue) then you must admit their view is at least exegetically feasible, but like me you will disagree with their conclusion. If you answer "no", then I think you have a bigger issue to address.

My question is simple, could such a view even be possible according to exegetical laws. Could you take symbolically numbers in poetic literature?

 

Who dismisses the firmament? Check Gen 7:11 to find what happened to it.

 

That is the very text that the Son of God confirms as literal and historical. Hence, so much for your proof text.

Parallelism is used to merely repeat a truth in a different way without necessarily changing or denying the truth. Parallelism is not symbolism. Here it is obvious the design is literal reinforcement, re-empphasizing this literal historical truth. There is absolutely no grounds in Genesis 1:26-27 to even suggest that there is anything other than literal historical narrative is meant. You have to dismiss Christ's comment in order to take one more step in that direction.

If that is the best you can do then you are straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel (grounds of symbolism).

Furthermore, notice you could not produce any kind of exegetical evidence for the very aspect of this narrative that you are really aiming at - the use of numerical days. Again, the Hebrew Old Testament will not give you ONE EXAMPLE of your IMAGINED use of such numbers found in Genesis one.

There is absolutely NO JUSTIFICATION for even the IMAGINATION of such a theory for the language used to describe days in Genesis one.

More importantly, where are you going to find in Old Testament Hebrew literature where such a grammatical structure containing such terms as repeated seven times in Genesis one is found??????? It is the structure found in Genesis that destroys your hypothesis!!!!!

Give an example of poetic literature in Hebrew Old Testament literature where "the evening and the morning were the FIRST....SECOND.....THIRD.....FOURTH......FIFTH.....SIXTH.....SEVENTH day"

YOU CAN'T! end of story, end of imaginative hypothesis! End of speculative theory.

What in the world is there to admit to???????? You want me to admit that numbers can be used symbolically???? However, we are not talking about isolated numbers in Genesis one. We are not talking about isolated numbers anywhere in scripture. We are talking about a clear and obvious context that demands numbers being used are symbolic. YOU DON"T HAVE THE CONTEXTUAL CRITERIA to even discuss the issue intelligently.

Now, you are showing your TRUE colors! So, come one, get it on, let's entertain your so-called "bigger issues"!

If I were a betting man, I would say your so-called "bigger issues" are based either on supposed so-called ever changing scientfic hypotheses and/or SELECTIVE interpretations of scripture!

You first have to have a valid CONTEXT to even bring up the issue and YOU DON'T!

 

You are missing the whole point of the argument! Peter, David and the writer of Hebrews do not merely reference Genesis 1 in literal fashion they INTERPRET the repetitious words "And he said" in Genesis one to be creation by Divine fiat, to be creation BY THE WORD OF HIS MOUTH - to SPEAK IT INTO EXISTENCE - thus an outright denial of a BILLION YEAR PROCESS.

Give me a break! For pete's sake, what in the world does PROPHECY have to do with the Genesis 1 account? Genesis one is not in the context of prophecy so you are mixing apples with oranges and trying to make a connection simply because both are fruit?????????????

Again, you are missing the point! The personal relationship with Christ is not the issue here. You can have a personal relationship with Christ and OPPOSE HIM by your false doctrine. The BILLION YEAR PROCESS theory OPPOSES the deity of Christ in regards to His own use and understanding of Genesis 1:26-27. If he is the Son of God and Creator then the BILLION YEAR PROCESS theory based upon symbolism is false or else Christ is promoting the kind of ignorance that is being attributed to literal seven day creationists as Christ handles the Genesis account as a historical literal narrative and places it in "the beginning of creation" rather than BILLIONS OF YEARS afterwards. If we are ignorant and uneducated then so is Christ and that means he is not the Son of God or Creator as the real Son of God and Creator could discern between a figure and historical reality and would not place Genesis 1:26-27 in "the beginning of creation" if the "beginning" was several BILLION YEARS prior to the origin of man.

 

The bottom line issue here is whether or not Jesus Christ is either a liar or deceived. He makes a direct reference to Genesis 1:26-27 where the only time the Genesis record uses "male and female" and he places it in "the beginning of creation."

1. Evolution denies the existence of humans in "the beginning" of the universe.

2. Theistic Evolution denies the existence of humans in "the beginning of creation."

Both Evolutionists and Theistic Evolutionists are calling Christ at best deceived and at worse a liar and either charge would deny He is the Son of God.

 

Consider for a moment what is the intent behind the attempt to desperately find a poetic justification for interpreting the seven days of the creation account? Is it demanded by exegesis of the text? No! If it were they could point out the obvious exegetical demand but they can't.

What is their intent behind manufacturing such an eisgetical basis for interpretation of this text?

It is not because the record does not harmonize with OTHER SCRIPTURES! It harmonizes PERFECTLY! Indeed other writers DEMAND Genesis one be interpreted to mean creation came about "by the word of His mouth" rather than by any BILLION YEAR PROCESS and that man was created by God "from the beginning of creation" rather than AFTER BILLIONS OF YEARS OF PROCESS EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT.

It is not because context demands it. Nothing in the context demands any kind of spiritualization, symbolism, metaphorical understanding or any other figurative language is being used.

The motive behind such attempts is UNBELIEF in the record as given and this UNBELIEF does not have its grounds in harmonizing one part of God's Word with another part of God's Word! It has its root in ever changing science so-called.

 

Walter,

Once again you fail to engage in the discussion. Yes, I can give you the symbolic nature of the 7 days, there are several commentaries who do just that. Yet, that is not the point. The question is the context, is the context poetic or not.

You have not even tried to advance your argument. Instead of exegesis, you engage in bashing. I have brought up elements in the text that would lend one towards that direction. No engagement.

Have a good discussion, I feel this discussion cannot continue for these reasons.

 

You can give me COMMENTARIES that provide a symbolic nature of the seven days????????? That is your SOURCE material??????? I can give you COMMENTARIES that deny every single solitary fundemental truth in God's Word and you think that is proper SOURCE material to set forth an hypothesis??????? Give me a break!!!

I did not ask for COMMENTARIES, I denied you could produce ONE SCRIPTURAL OLD TESTAMENT TEXT to support your COMMENTARY based IMAGINATIONS! Give one Old Testament example of the EXACT langauge used elsewhere by Hebrew writers that indicate it can be understood as poetical/symbolical/figurative in meaning or usage? If you can't, then you are operating on a mentality of EISGESIS not exegesis.

You have no VALID EXAMPLE from Hebrew Old Testament literature to even SUPPOSE such numbers in this particular structure can be poetic or symbolic or figurative in nature and yet you want to proceed on the basis of pure speculation of the possiblity in this text??????? So proceed and what do you find? You find NOTHING! Genesis 1:26-27 does not provide anything but the use of Hebrew parallelism designed to simply re-emphasize a literal historical event!!!!

So you start with NOTHING and you find NOTHING and you want me to admit you have SOMETHING when you have NOTHING! You call that exegetical thinking???? I call it empty eisgetical speculative nonsense.

What argument?????????? You have no Biblical examples! You have no exegetical contextual support! You have NOTHING but pure unadulterated eisgetical speculative nonsense!

In addition, the very text that you want to squeeze a potential poetical basis out of (Gen. 1:26-27) is the very text Jesus places a nail in your eisgetical coffin. He places the origin of a human male and female in "the beginning of creation" not BILLIONS OF YEARS after the "beginning of creation." So what is the point of YOUR COMMENTARIES in suggesting such a poetical nature?????? Is it not to prove the very thing Christ denies and thus make Jesus Christ a liar and is that not effectively what you are attempting to provide a basis for??????

You have done no such thing! Anyone who can read English realizes that the repetition in Genesis 1:27 is to emphasize the intent of God in creating man in his own image. YOU CAN'T SQUEEZE anything esle out of that langauge especially in light of the fact that this text alone is the ONLY text Jesus refers to in Genesis 1 and places it in "the beginning of creation" not BILLIONS OF YEARS or even THOUSANDS of years AFTER creation.

Do you care anything about how the Bible interprets itself?? Apparently not!

If this discussion has failed, it is because you have failed to produce ONE SOLITARY EXAMPLE in Biblical literature to support what you are trying to validate.

If this discussion has failed, it is because you have IGNORED God's own inspired commentary on Genesis one that repudiates any kind of intepretation that support THOUSANDS much less BILLIONS of years into the meaning of "evening and the morning were the FIRST....Second.....etc.

If this discussion has failed, it is because you hold UNINSPIRED COMMENTARIES above the INSPIRED COMMENTATORS found in God's Word explicitly dealing with the words "And God said...." and "from the beginning of creation."

 

Those who attempt to read into Genesis chapter one the evolutionary hypothesis are attacking the very foundation of our Christian faith and every fundemental tenet thereof.

If Evolution is scientifically correct then we are not made in the "image" of God any more than any other living thing.

If Evolution is scientifically correct then sin is not the cause of death of humans or any other living thing on earth.

If Evolution is scientifically correct then Jesus Christ is not the Son of God or the Creator but either the greatest lunatic or liar that has ever walked the earth due to his affirmation that male and female and marriage was instituted in "the beginning of creation."

If Evolution is scientifically correct then there is no basis for redemption as death did not enter into the world by one man but preexisted humanity by billions of years.

If Evolution is scientifically correct the Bible is not the Word of God and indeed there is no God as revealed in Scriptures as such a God would be a liar and His word and thus his promises worthless.

 

Preach it brother! :applause: