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

I never discuss Old Testament with heathens. New testament, sure. Salvation? Sure.

History?

No way. They have no understanding of the sprirtual and only read to tear down, not to learn or build up. So they CANNOT see truth, they can only see what the devil wants them to see.

You guys are wasting your time.

quote:

---

It’s clear that the moon is a symbolic representation of the night, but it’s still irrelevant to when night begins and ends.

---

You're right that it is irrelevant to when the night begins. The verse wasn't intending to describe when the night begins, so there is no problem with using the moon as a symbol for the night.

The point of the verses is to show that where God created a supernatural source of light initially, He then created the sun, moon, and stars as natural sources and markers for telling of time. The sun's light separates day from night, and the moon and stars are signs of night, with the moon being most prominent.

quote:

---

It’s also clear that genesis was written by someone with a very rudimentary understanding of pretty much everything.

---

God knows exactly how everything works, more than you or I do, and even more than scientists. However, God's revelation to people wasn't intended to be an exhaustive revealing of all knowledge.

quote:

---

Feel free to share your logic pretzel though. I love pretzels.

---

I love pretzels, too, but I don't think I've provided any.

I'm not going to respond again to your comments about Billy Graham or the necessity of YEC for salvation. I've already told you several times that those are tertiary issues and that I'm focusing in on the text, itself. I've responded to every single point you've made and it is interesting to me that that's where you want to focus the discussion instead of what the text says, because you don't have a leg to stand on there.

You should also look up what a straw man argument is and consider that I'm making logical conclusions based on the arguments you are providing.

quote:

---

Apart from God's intervention, sure. But that's not what's being said here. What's being said is that the OEC interpretation is as old as the YEC interpretation and then something from general revelation came along and added substantiation to OEC. There's absolutely NOTHING wrong with that.

---

I hope you see the pointing I'm making in comparing your interpretation of the old earth with the denial of the resurrection. I'm explaining to you that the text is critically important, and if you take the approach that the text should be interpreted by nature rather than the other way around, you can and often times do wind up with both OEC and a metaphorical interpretation of the resurrection of Jesus. Without the resurrection, there is no hope for our own everlasting life in resurrected bodies. The resurrection is a gospel issue, and how we interpret the text is important to it.

I'm criticizing your view because it cannot be defended from the text by itself. In fact, your view destroys biblical hermeneutics, because it denies that words have specific meanings based on context. Your view requires a wholly unique usage of the word yom in Genesis 1 that doesn't occur anywhere else in the BIble, even though the same author uses the word hundreds of times and in every other instance, we can confidently know what it means based on its context.

Once again, your position destroys the plain meaning of the text and introduces a unique word usage for no apparent reason.

I have written extensively at this point to show you that you are wrong by using the rest of Scripture, but you refuse to rebut what I've said; you just keep repeating unfounded possibilities for your position.

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is why you cannot support your position from the text, itself

---

I have done so numerous times and you are being obstinate about that.

---

But you haven't. Let me explain what I mean. I mean that I have supported my position by going through the text and exegeting it, describing the words used in both Greek and Hebrew, and demonstrating what they mean in normal usage and how their meanings are derived from and constrained by the text, itself. I've provided context, both immediate and throughout the rest of Scripture to show how the word is used and interpreted. I've demonstrated that Moses uses the creation week as a basis for the Sabbath (4th commandment), how Jesus both upheld the 4th commandment and taught that Genesis is a factual and historic account by referring to the creation of man and woman as the basis for marriage. I've shown how the Apostle Paul referred back to creation in Genesis as historical in terms of the creation of Adam and his fall into sin.

You have not responded to these points with a counter and rebuttal. You continue to merely talk about semantic range and the possibility of an OEC interpretation from that range, even though you haven't demonstrated that the word yom has a unique meaning or usage in Genesis 1 (and only in the first part of the chapter, apparently). You haven't gone through the text at all and defended your position. All you have done is said that the range of yom is greater than a 24-hour day, and therefore that's also possible in the text. You haven't explained why, grammatically, but you have just asserted it.

So at this point, I'm going to stop responding to you (unless you want to actually debate the text rather than what you think are mere possibilities) and pray that the Lord opens your eyes to this deception that you are under regarding His word and how it can be interpreted. I hope you aren't led into further error in more important matters.

quote:

---

Care to explain how the passage is false?

---

quote:

---

Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night

---

Ignoring the firmament idiocy, lights…plural…to divide the day from the night. Only the sun divides the day from the night.

Literally incorrect.

quote:

---

I'm not going to respond again to your comments about Billy Graham or the necessity of YEC for salvation

---

But they are crucial to your rejection of the alternatives.

P1. YEC is the biblical, historical, default position.
P2. OEC is metaphorical and dangerous
C. People will be led astray into biblical heresy

I hope you can see that the conclusion is dependent on the 2 premises. If you are denying the 2 premises, then what are you even objecting to? It would be a tacit admission that your rejection of alternatives to YEC is unfounded and that alternatives are just as viable as YEC.

quote:

---

I've responded to every single point you've made

---

You absolutely have not and that's why I keep repeating them. In fact, you agree that you aren't responding in the previous comment

quote:

---

you want to focus the discussion instead of what the text says

---

I'M the one who has been reminding YOU of what the text says. YOU are denying what the text says and what it means

quote:

---

I'm making logical conclusions based on the arguments you are providing

---

YEC is an alternative. It is not the default position and it might not even be historically accurate

quote:

---

if you take the approach that the text should be interpreted by nature rather than the other way around

---

Foo, THIS IS A STRAWMAN argument. At no point did I say anything like this. You are tilting at windmills

quote:

---

I'm criticizing your view because it cannot be defended from the text by itself

---

And you have been corrected on this mistaken notion. OEC is no less "biblical" than YEC. Not one iota. YEC is NOT the default position. You are intrasigent which is not Christlike

quote:

---

your view destroys biblical hermeneutics

---

Says the person who is shoehorning length of yom into the theological/hermeneutical meaning of the text. Why can't you understand that? The length of yom has NO BEARING on the intent of the story. None whatsoever. The meaning wouldn't be changed either way

quote:

---

it denies that words have specific meanings based on context

---

Another strawman

quote:

---

Your view requires a wholly unique usage of the word yom in Genesis 1 that doesn't occur anywhere else in the BIble

---

Which is not a problem at all.

quote:

---

introduces a unique word usage for no apparent reason

---

Not apparent TO YOU

quote:

---

you just keep repeating unfounded possibilities for your position

---

OEC is every bit as biblically sound as YEC. You're just being stubborn. You can't deny that yom can mean age. You can't deny that evening and morning can be metaphorical. You can't deny that the creation narrative can be unique in it's combination of these words. Those are facts

quote:

---

I have supported my position by going through the text and exegeting it

---

Incorrect. You are commiting eisegesis by insisting on 24 hour period in the account even though biblical people did not think yom meant that in every case.

quote:

---

demonstrating what they mean in normal usage

---

"normal"

quote:

---

their meanings are derived from and constrained by the text, itself

---

Factually incorrect. That is your OPINION

quote:

---

Moses uses the creation week as a basis for the Sabbath (4th commandment), how Jesus both upheld the 4th commandment

---

Which could be typology - FACT

quote:

---

taught that Genesis is a factual and historic account

---

This is not in contradiction to OEC

quote:

---

Paul referred back to creation in Genesis as historical in terms of the creation of Adam and his fall into sin

---

This is not in contradiction to OEC

quote:

---

You have not responded to these points with a counter and rebuttal

---

Just done, yet again

quote:

---

You continue to merely talk about semantic range and the possibility of an OEC interpretation from that range

---

Those are rebuttals. They are just as valid as YEC

quote:

---

you haven't demonstrated that the word yom has a unique meaning or usage in Genesis 1

---

It CAN. You can't deny that.

quote:

---

You haven't gone through the text at all and defended your position

---

I told you that it's a fact that biblical people knew yom did not mean 24 hour period in every instance

quote:

---

You haven't explained why, grammatically, but you have just asserted it

---

Grammar is not an issue here. The OEC interpretation is not invalidated by the "grammar" because we know the meanings of the words. OEC is possible just like YEC is possible. If morning and evening are metaphorical, then yom being age is not affected by the grammar.

quote:

---

pray that the Lord opens your eyes to this deception

---

Foo, you keep presenting your OPINION as fact. Your case is NOT built on fact. It is built on opinion. A valid opinion, but just an opinion.

Here are the points you continue to not address. I suspect it's because you know they sink your ship

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. If you can't acknowledge that yom having semantic range 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.


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 could be 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
9. You can't prove that other instances of yom are necessarily definitive for the creation account

quote:

---

Here are the points you continue to not address. I suspect it's because you know they sink your ship

---

I already addressed these. I'm not going to give any new responses to you because you refuse to listen when I respond.

You can find my responses here: LINK

quote:

---

Your position can be summed up in 2 basic assertions

1. YEC is historical narrative and is biblical. People of biblical times would have understood the creation account this way. Thus, it is the factual, default position.
2. OEC is metaphorical which is dangerous and only came about later to appease extrabiblical discoveries.

Both of these assertions are false. If you can dislodge those mistaken ideas from your brain, you will begin to have a more biblically sound position. Until then, your position is basically moderately-well informed, unecessarily dogmatic sunday school coffee talk.

Your characterization isn't scholarly, it's not biblically sound and it may not even be historically correct. THOSE are facts

---

Historically, both Jews and Christians believed creation happened in six literal days, not six long ages.

This view dominated for centuries:

Jewish Tradition: The Seder Olam Rabbah (2nd century AD) dated creation to 3761 BC. The Hebrew calendar still reflects this today.

Early Church Fathers: Basil the Great, Ambrose, and most others took Genesis 1 literally. Augustine had a unique take (instantaneous creation), but he still believed in a young earth.

Bishop Ussher (1600s) famously dated creation to 4004 BC using biblical genealogies, a view adopted in many Protestant circles.

The idea that each “day” represents an age only emerged in the 1800s, after geology and evolution challenged the timeline. The “day-age” theory is modern, not ancient.

Bottom line: For most of history, six days meant six days. THOSE are facts

I'm coming back to this discussion after having some time of rest and I want to only focus on the grammatical argument since that was my primary argument, not the other two summary statements you made previously.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Historically, both Jews and Christians believed creation happened in six literal days, not six long ages

---

Again, this is not necessarily true. It is from the Jews themselves that we learned that yom does not necessarily equal a 24 hour period.

---

You are not addressing what is actually being argued. The claim is not that "yom" can mean something other than 24 hours, but that the Jews understood "yom" in the context of creation to be referring to 24 hour days.

quote:

---

The semantic range of yom has existed since biblical times and was a valid interpretation as long as the word has been used in biblical contexts. IOW, it has always been a valid interpretation even if it was unrealized by people.

---

What you are not addressing is how the semantic range of any word is always limited by the context in which it is used. This is necessary, grammatically, otherwise a word loses its meaning due to not having a mechanism to understand its meaning.

We must use context to limit the semantic range in a given situation, otherwise we may completely misinterpret or misunderstand the meaning of the text.

For example, the Hebrew word rûa? can mean several different things, such as referring to the physical wind (Gen 8:1); to breath (Job 12:10); to the spirit or life of a person (Prov 18:14); to a person's disposition or attitude (Ex. 35:21); to the Holy Spirit of God (Gen. 1:2); to a demonic entity (1 Sam. 16:14); or to the inspiration of a Prophet by God (Ez. 11:5).

This one word can mean at least 7 different things, depending on how the word is used within its context.

If we applied what you're saying about yom to this word, we wouldn't ever know what is being said when the word is used. In order to know what is being conveyed, we have to use the context to limit the semantic range to a meaning that makes sense.

Taking this principle of context limiting semantic range, we can't merely say that the word yom is used in Genesis 1 so therefore it can legitimately mean anything within the semantic range of the word. The range, again, must be limited by its context. It's how range is used all throughout the Bible, so if you're going to argue for a unique instance where that isn't true in Gen. 1, then you need to provide evidence for why that is the case rather than just continuing to repeat the words "semantic range". No one is arguing that words may have a range of meaning. We're talking about how to know when a particular meaning is meant in a written communication.

quote:

---

For the 10th time, the Jews are who we learned from that yom doesn't mean 24 hour periods every time.

---

You are still arguing for the existence of a semantic range. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is how we know when a word has a particular meaning.

quote:

---

And grammar is not an issue. The "grammar" allows for either construction. That's why both interpretations exist.

---

The grammar doesn't allow for it within its internal context. I provided an argument for why that is the case and you haven't disputed it. You just keep coming back to "semantic range".

You need to provide a positive argument how the word "yom" can mean something other than 24-hour days in the context of Genesis 1. So far, you haven't done that. You just keep going back to "semantic range" and "other Christians disagree". You need to make the argument, yourself.

quote:

---

I have addressed this numerous times

---

But you haven't. You just keep claiming that others disagree. You have not, to my knowledge, provided actual support for your position from the text, itself. You keep saying that the word "yom" can mean multiple things within the Bible, and that some Christians disagree with the 24-hour meaning, so therefore it can mean something other than 24 hours in Genesis 1. You haven't provided a grammatical argument to support your claim that the grammar is not an issue here, especially given that I've provided an argument that the grammar is.

quote:

---

Grammar is not an issue. Why can't you get that in your brain?

---

It is an issue, and I've provided a grammatical reason why it is. You haven't refuted my argument, but have only made the assertion that I'm wrong. The onus is on you to show that I'm wrong, not just say it. I've provided support for my position and you have not yet addressed it, nor have you provided a positive argument for your own position. You've only made blanket assertions so far. This response is no different.

quote:

---

Again, if morning and evening are not referring to the time period of day, then yom is perfectly suitable meaning age. That's why both interpretations exist - because people can see how obvious it is

---

I did a search for every time the word evening (ereb) is used in the Pentateuch, and every time it's used, it is speaking of the time when the sun is setting or has set, within the 24-hour day/night cycle.

The onus is on you to explain why "morning" and "evening" do not mean a 24-hour day/night cycle in Genesis 1 when everywhere else the combination of words is used by the same supposed author, it means a literal 24-hour day/night cycle.

I've explained my position: the word "day" is combined with "morning" and "evening" AND has a number (first, second, etc.) associated with the "day" of creation.

If grammar isn't a problem like you claim, I would like for you to provide one example where the Bible gives all three of those elements ("day", with "morning" and "evening", and a number) where the usage is something other than a 24-hour day.

quote:

---

Completely false

---

It is not false, and I'll explain why (again).

You are claiming that because the word "yom" has a semantic range with multiple meanings, that when it is used in Genesis 1, it can mean something other than a 24-hour day. You are ignoring the grammatical context which is limiting the range of the word's meaning. Therefore, if someone were to take the same approach regarding other words, they could make the argument that we don't really know what a word means in any given context since it could have one of the several meanings within that range. When you ignore grammatical context, you remove the author's own limitations on the text to help provide meaning.

What you're doing is ignoring the grammatical context, and if you ignored the grammatical context anywhere else in Scripture, you could actually claim the Bible is either unknowable, or that it could legitimately have many different meanings.

quote:

---

Aside from all the other points I have raised that you are ignoring

---

I've responded to those before, but would be happy to do so again once we conclude the discussion of the grammar. I'm still waiting for you to support your position.