re: DNA analysis shows that Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites

quote:

---

Can you show me any example within the text of Scripture where the word yom is translated as something other than a 24-hour period of time when it is modified by the words "morning" or "evening", and has a number associated with it?

---

quote:

---

otherwise you would have to admit that yom can mean literally anything the reader wants it to mean, which would make many passages unintelligible.

---

quote:

---

Context absolutely determines how a passage of Scripture should be read. There are many different genres being represented in the Scriptures and in order to understand what God is telling us, we have to read His words in light of how He is communicating.

---

I addressed these comments in my previous response to you

quote:

---

Once again, I didn't say OEC necessarily destroys biblical inerrancy or automatically makes someone a heretic, only that it can due to how one must throw out the biblical rules of Bible interpretation to get there, as you seem to be doing.

---

OEC does nothing to "throw out the biblical rules of Bible interpretation." That is made up in your head. You are wrong on this issue and there are OEC advocates who espouse biblical inerrancy. BTW, those "rules" you refer to are not as hard and fast as you think they are. If you disagree, explain election, preterism, tribulation\Daniel 7, etc. I. e. metaphorical language meaning, capable of being interpreted different ways yet the theological meaning isn’t undermined

quote:

---

You're bringing up an example of numbering only, which can be affected by scribal errors or even how numbers are used in ancient Hebrew.

---

There are scholars who have made the case that the biblical authors, like other ancient people, used numbers in a hyperbolic way. MUCH LIKE YOM. It's the EXACT same thing. So you tried to skirt the issue but I'll keep asking if you like.

quote:

---

Regarding Noah, I chose that as an example precisely because the number (40) is modified in a similar way to Genesis 1 in terms of time.

---

It's a good parallel but not decisive and I explained why in my previous response to you

quote:

---

The grammar doesn't support it.

---

Grammar does not deny it either. The grammar doesn't make a decision either way

quote:

---

The same creation account was used by the same author as the basis for the 7-day week which ended with the Sabbath that the people of God needed to keep.

---

The "basis" for, not necessarily a scientific statement about the length of yom. A representation, as in metaphorical.

quote:

---

whatever was actually meant in Genesis 1 has to fit within the interpretative paradigm of the 4th commandment and Jesus' teaching on creation.

---

And metaphorical language can absolutely do that

quote:

---

The straight-forward, literalistic reading of the historical narrative of creation fits within those boundaries.

---

OEC can also

quote:

---

I've said multiple times that OEC won't lead to heresy by itself, but the interpretative framework used by OEC could lead to heresy.

---

It's astonishing that you here admit you don't see wholesale evidence of compromised doctrine yet, you continue to doomcast and be unnecessarily dogmatic in your assertions. That is a personal, emotional problem. Not an intellectual problem. Your concern could be said about almost anything doctrinal

quote:

---

I'm not interested in those things for this discussion.

---

They are part of the debate

quote:

---

you have not proposed or defended any particular claims beyond that the word yom has a larger semantic range

---

AND that you agree morning/evening can be metaphorical AND that they don't have to have another parallel in scripture AND that hyperbolic language is used in scripture which you accept AND you agree there's no evidence that OEC in and of itself leads to heresy

quote:

---

that statement alone doesn't negate my position

---

I never said it did. It's been my case all along that YEC is a valid interpretation

quote:

---

nor does it support yours.

---

yom having multiple shades of length absolutely does support the OEC position. OEC is founded upon it

quote:

---

I'm saying that the methodology used to get there can certainly lead to heresy.

---

So can biblical literalism so why aren’t you doomcasting about a 24 hour interpretation potentially leading to heresy? You're just exercising your opinion that your view of context leads you to believe that YEC is the better view in which case I refer you back to #1 in my previous post

quote:

---

Apples and oranges. Eschatology relies on a lot of poetic and apocalyptic language. The age of the earth doesn't.

---

The age of the earth CAN use metaphorical language just like eschatology can. It's absolutely not apples and oranges. "Poetic and apocalyptic" language are by definition metaphorical. Foo, this is bad.

quote:

---

You need to prove that Genesis 1 is poetic and metaphorical language rather than historical first.

---

Poetry and metaphor does not equal ahistorical. Again, if you think that then the potential hyperbolic numbers in the exodus account becomes a serious problem for you

quote:

---

There is a 3rd option full faith that he did, and acknowledgement that I don't know how he did it.

---

I think regardless of which hermeneutical option is taken, the details of exactly what happened in creation are a mystery.

My point, though, is that we can know as much as has been revealed to us. Creation isn't a complete and total mystery, because God told us what He did, just not in exhaustive detail.

quote:

---

The gospels tell us that he spoke about many things not recorded, but even then if he fully explained creation, what room is there for faith?

---

We can believe that God actually did what He told us He did. We have the Bible as God's revelation, and it requires faith to assent to it as God's revealed truth, and to trust that in it contains everlasting life through Jesus Christ.

Many people saw with their own eyes the miracles performed by God, both mediately through the Prophets, and immediately by His power, as well as through the God-man Jesus Christ, and yet many did not believe. There is quite a lot of room for faith even in trusting the Bible as it is.

quote:

---

If He wants a personal relationship with us then why would he confront humanity with overwhelming evidence of His hand in creation.
The number of minutes creation took is immaterial to Salvation, Jesus spoke about what we needed to know with assuredness.

As Paul said we see through a glass darkly.
It's not important for me to know how, it was supernatural, and whatever He meant by "6 days" in Hebrew is what happened, I don't need to approach it from a post 17th century mindset of time.

---

I agree that not everything revealed in Scripture is equally pertinent to salvation, and yet all of Scripture is God-breathed. If God chose to reveal something to us, it must be important for us to seek to understand it and believe it. That's all I'm seeking to do.

quote:

---

Good for them. Now prove that God, despite the fact that he could have chosen different communication for the creation account, intends for yom to ALWAYS mean a literal 24 hour period. You can't because you're not God.

---

I have no intention to say that it ALWAYS means a 24-hour period. I've already said that it can and does mean other periods of time, yet it is always the context that determines the meaning. You seem to be ignoring that.

quote:

---

Why do you keep saying this? I have made a case all along. You're acting like OEC doesn't exist

---

You haven't made any case. You've made assertions about what the word could mean and that the language could be metaphorical but you haven't supported your claims one bit in the case of the creation account of Genesis. I've shown you evidence to support my claim but you haven't supported your claim that it is metaphorical and not literal. You haven't responded to Moses, Jesus, or Paul taking the account literally, but only say things like "good for them". That's not an argument and it isn't a rebuttal.

quote:

---

Would you describe Billy Graham this way?

---

I don't know his position on that. Perhaps he claimed to be.

quote:

---

Another strawman

---

With you, I am not convinced that it is. You have yet to show why you believe that Genesis is not literal history. You've only said that it might not be and that it could be metaphorical rather than literal, but have not proven your position. Perhaps you should spend some time supporting your position rather than opining about what you think are possibilities.

quote:

---

You can't even see the inconsistency in these sentences. You started with "I believe" and then you said "the Bible is clear." Those are inconsistent. If the Bible is "clear," then we KNOW, not "believe." "Believe" implies the possibility for other "beliefs." If scripture is "clear," there is no room for other "beliefs." This is a textbook case of cognitive dissonance. You have backed into admission that OEC advocates can be legitimate followers of Jesus but you can't let go of the fact that you think some compromise is going on.

---

Those things are not inconsistent. I believe that the Bible is clear in this matter. That just means that I have confidence and trust that it is understandable and knowable because of its clarity. That is not a contradiction; that is you not understanding what I'm saying.

quote:

---

Do you honestly believe that OEC advocates feel any differently than you about this?

---

I don't know. I was talking about my own position and the importance of the discussion with that comment. However, it does seem that there is at least one other poster here that doesn't think this is something we should care about.

quote:

---

This is a problem. Now you are limiting God

---

I am not. God is free to do as He wills, but when He communicates what He has done to us, we need to listen and believe it.

quote:

---

OEC is not any less "historical" than YEC. You keep acting from this presumption

---

It's "less historical" in the sense that it doesn't see the narrative as a faithful telling of historical events. You seem to think it is a metaphorical narrative that uses embellishments and/or condescending language to relay truths in a non-literal (non-historical) way without providing evidence for your interpretation.

quote:

---

There's that cognitive dissonance again. "Believe" vs "clear"

---

It's not. You need to take a break and start thinking about what I'm saying. I'm expressing confidence in the clarity of the Scriptures. That is not expressing "cognitive dissonance".

quote:

---

Grammar doesn't have a say one way or the other. The words can be metaphorical. OEC is not more ambiguous than YEC. It's just different

---

So you are admitting that we shouldn't look to the grammar for understanding what the text is saying??

quote:

---

Plenty of people disagree with you and you have admitted you don't think their soteriology is affected. Since that's the case, there's no reason to use words like "clear" and "plain meaning." To OEC advocates, their interpretation is parsimonious and bolsters their worship

---

What just said about worship is irrelevant to whether or not it is a right understanding of the text. If you disagree with my arguments, you are free to rebut them and support your own position. So far you haven't done much of either of that.

quote:

---

This isn't about scripture. This is about you characterizing OEC advocates of doing something that you have even admitted they don't do.

---

You are the one who keeps talking about whether an OEC is being heretical or something else. I'd like to stick to the discussion of the text itself, not whether or not OECs can be saved. I've already exhausted myself on that one.

And yes, this is about Scripture. It's always been about Scripture.

quote:

---

You are wrong on this matter and need to pray about it

---

You need to support your position rather than saying "you're wrong". If I'm wrong, tell me why. Provide your arguments for why my understanding is wrong and why yours is correct. You haven't done that yet.

quote:

---

Nope. That is a strawman. And having something outside scripture corroborate the text is not a crime. Not in any way. Think about what you’re saying, we have to read the Bible and settle on an ineluctable translation despite any metaphor in scripture and that interpretation can NEVER change despite anything we come to know and that God most certainly intended it to be that way even though scripture itself doesn’t say that. That is absolutely unbiblical, contrary to time honored textual scholarship. Nevermind that the Bible was not always written and there isn’t always a 1:1 translation equivalent for every word in the Bible. It’s absurd. It seems you haven’t worked this out to its logical conclusion

---

It's not a strawman. You have yet to show that it is a strawman. You have yet to prove anything you have said. You have only made assertions without any support for them. I'm calling you out on them.

And we are called to interpret the Bible by the Bible, not according to our understanding of science or anything else outside of the Bible. What I'm describing is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis.

quote:

---

You're saying the Bible doesn't have metaphor? Just look at any analogous language. Ecc 3:1-8. Revelations. etc

---

I've already agreed that it does have metaphor, but we are not at liberty to pick and choose what passages are and are not metaphorical. That's why I said you need to prove your case. You can't just assert that Genesis 1 and following is metaphorical. You have to support your claim, which you have yet to do.

quote:

---

They CAN

---

Then prove it.

quote:

---

Says who? I can see that you're trying to skirt hyperbolic use of numbers (metaphor) in ancient societies because it is absolutely a loser for yom being only a 24 hour period. It shows precisely that ancient people did not always use precise mathematical numbers or scientific language for describing or understanding things

---

If you make the genealogies metaphorical, then they can mean whatever you want them to mean, because they are clearly given to establish a lineage within time. If you say there are gaps, you have to explain what the gaps are and for how long. Are there millions of years in there? Explain how you get to that from the text rather than assuming it based on your presupposition of an old earth.

quote:

---

Strawman

---

Explain how it is.

quote:

---

You CAN get long ages

---

How? Where does the text allow for it, specifically? And not just that, but explain to me where the Bible actually teaches old ages without assuming them before coming to the text?

quote:

---

How does that undermine OEC?

---

Jesus interpreted the account literally.

quote:

---

How does that undermine OEC?

---

Since I ran out of characters, ask this: what interpretative model do you support?

Day-Age View
Framework Hypothesis
Gap Theory
Evolutionary Creationism / Theistic Evolution

Or, something else?

quote:

---

I've already given proof that it was interpreted by Moses and Jesus as historical language rather than poetic

Good for them.

---

Yeah, that Jesus dude didn’t know what he was talking about. somethingdifferent is here to bless all of us with his knowledge.

Who are you dumb Christians going to listen to, Jesus, or somethingdifferent? Jesus won’t provide you with a list and tell you what that list means definitively. somethingdifferent will give you that list. I know who I’m going with.

Foo, you are repeating yourself a lot so I'm going to consolidate some responses

This AGAIN constitutes as a rebuttal and it's the same things I've been saying all along

quote:

---

No you didn't. If you did, then I wouldn't keep asking you about it. You've shown me no evidence for your, or a rebuttal of mine.

---

Here they are again. I have posted these points numerous times now

quote:

---

I've provided Scriptural proof for my claims

---

So have I

quote:

---

You are essentially saying grammar doesn't matter.

---

Strawman

quote:

---

I don't know his position on that. Perhaps he claimed to be.

---

He was a theistic evolutionist/progressive creationist. So you can stop with the strawman characterizations. Guess what else he said about the "hermeneutics" of the issue?

quote:

---

Those things are not inconsistent

---

You can't see an inconsistency between "I think" and "clear/plain meaning"?? Unbelievable. Completely, needlessly recalcitrant. Not Christlike at all

quote:

---

at least one other poster here that doesn't think this is something we should care about.

---

Definitely not at the top of the priority list, that's for sure

quote:

---

And we are called to interpret the Bible by the Bible, not according to our understanding of science or anything else outside of the Bible

---

This is a misleading statement and shows your lack of knowledge.

quote:

---

If you make the genealogies metaphorical, then they can mean whatever you want them to mean

---

Another strawman

quote:

---

If you say there are gaps, you have to explain what the gaps are and for how long

---

You made this up in your head. It's not real

quote:

---

Explain how you get to that from the text rather than assuming it based on your presupposition of an old earth

---

Because we know this from history Foo. It was in the article I cited. Obstinate

1. You keep referring to grammar. Grammar is how sentences are constructed. It does play a role in how we understand communication. However, that's not the issue in this case. The issue is that yom can mean more than one thing regardless of the grammatical structure. The story absolutely can be about long ages and the theological point of the story is changed precisely none. You then claimed that morning and evening dictate a narrow definition of yom. Both of those words can absolutely be metaphorical and you can't deny that. It is absolutely a valid translation which in no way undermines the reliability of scripture. Those are facts. Denying them just shows an emotional commitment to something unnecessary.

2. You started grousing about metaphorical meanings so I would ask you why you allow for metaphorical meaning in some cases but not others. No doubt, you are going to respond "context." If so, refer back to #1.

3. You have yet to prove how the length of yom is critical to people's salvation, worship, praxis, etc. Do not appeal to biblical inerrancy. There are PLENTY of OEM advocates over the course of decades who are biblical scholars and are champions of biblical inerrancy - that every word of the Bible is trustworthy and accurate. That the translation process is reliable. OEM does not injure biblical inerrancy at all.

4. You asked if I think it's a legitimate possibility that Noah was on the ark for 40 thousand years. I would turn that around and ask you how many people exited Egypt. Careful now. You're about to step on some landmines with that question. You might want to withdraw that question. If you can't acknowledge that yom having semantic range and that fact is similar to other metaphorical passages (hyperbolic numbers, eschatology, wisdom literature) then you are either ignorant or being obstinate in order to avoid being pinned down on the interpretation of creation.

5. I never said the ancient audiences understood the creation story incorrectly. I never said "wrong." I said phenomenological. "The sun rises and sets." "The four corners of the world." "Under the ocean." Etc. The flexibility of the words create a translation scope without infringing upon the theological meaning and this passage can stand alone in terms of yom's meaning because the passage is unique in scripture. There is no rule that all words have to always match the meaning of other instances. That is merely a helpful tool in most cases. This is a textual\translation fact. You cannot deny that.

6. I asked you to show wholesale examples of OEC advocates exemplifying biblical heresy BECAUSE OF OEC. Show how OEC, simplicter, caused Billy Graham to believe "Jesus isn't actually God and Lord; He's just a wise guru who can be your moral leader if you want that. We don't have to evangelize; we all just should love each other and accept that we all have some truth in us." Not that it's POSSIBLE that an individual COULD say those things. That OEC advocates are corporately straying from biblical inerrancy, devolving into compromised doctrine specifically because of the length of yom. Be honest, you are not going to be able to show that.

7. YEC is not more historical than OEC. They are both possible. YEC is not more miraculous than OEC. They are both miraculous.

8. OEC does not deny the fall of Adam nor the need for a 2nd Adam. There can absolutely be a literal Adam in OEC.

9. I get that you are averse to using something outside scripture to interpret scripture. The account can have metaphorical language. Since that's the case, there is absolutely no reason why we can't supplement the interpretation of special revelation with general revelation and that absolutely would not be a case of "throwing out the biblical rules of interpretation." You are operating from the presumption that yom means 24 hour period and anything else is later and contrived. There is no reason to start from that presumption. Given that's the case, OEC can be just as literal as YEC. If OEC refers to ages and that's actually the case, then OEC is more literal than YEC.

quote:

---

You can't seem to understand basic arguments and I feel like I'm casting pearls before swine, unfortunately.

---

Here's the state of your position:
1. You can't admit that "morning" and "evening" CAN BE metaphorical
2. You can't prove Jesus/Moses/Paul meant a 24 hour period. You are just asserting it without proving it
3. You can't prove that the 7 day week is typology
4. You can't admit that literalism can be every bit as much of a problem
5. You can't admit that if the language is metaphorical, then OEC is more literal than YEC.
6. You can't admit you are operating from the presumption that your position is the default position (see #1, 2, 3) and anything else is straying from the truth.
7. You don't understand the "intent of the author." If you did, you wouldn't care so much about the length of yom
8. You limit God saying you don't think he could have used different language

quote:

---

Besides a Million seeming like a large number, it is very possible a culture that doesn't bury their bodies in a common place will leave no trace in an area like Sinai.

---

I don’t think we can say with certainty that they were wandering in what’s now the Sinai Peninsula. There are quite a few archaeological theories suggesting that Mount Sinai might actually be in modern-day Saudi Arabia, which covers an even larger area.

quote:

---

Besides a Million seeming like a large number

---

It could be interpreted as 2 million! Or it could be hyperbolic numbers which was common for ANE cultures.

quote:

---

it is very possible a culture that doesn't bury their bodies in a common place will leave no trace in an area like Sinai

---

Yep. First, there just aren't many people digging around in the desert for proof of this. Second, they don't even know where to dig since the route is not known (2 main possibilities). They don't know what level to dig to because the timeline is not known (2 main possibilities). Archaeological corroboration for other biblical people/events/places is still being discovered so Finkelstein's argument from silence is stupid. "We should expect to see...."

Most importantly, just like the creation story, the number of people is not the point of the story.

These points need to be repeated

1. You are acting from the presumption that YEC is the central, literal truth and that everything else is peripheral that has to be "proven" in order to knock YEC out of the catbird seat. That is not the case. Just like the exodus, end times, etc, there are multiple POSSIBILITIES, of which YEC is just one.

2. The people you say interpreted yom as a 24 hour period are the ones who told us yom doesn't necessarily mean 24 hours. Thus, it is misleading to say they thought of creation as based on 24 hour time periods.

3. YEC is not literal and OEC metaphorical. If it turns out that the age of the earth is old, then OEC would be literal and YEC would be metaphorical. They are different perspectives on the word yom. "Beginning" doesn't necessarily mean a certain 24 hour period. 7 day week can be typology, a representation.

4. OEC is not novel and created out of modern science. OEC was ALWAYS in the semantic range of the words, even if it was unrealized by people. The disciples thought genea meant that the 2nd coming would be within their lifetimes. When that didn't happen, dispensationalism was a popular view. Now, dispensationalism has fallen out of favor