I’m not sure what to make of that except be pleased you see legitimacy to multiple layers of meaning in the Genesis week, just as do I!
You mean like major YEC ministries claiming that accelerated hyper-evolution of animals species from just a relative few baramin KINDS on the ark totally redefined what everybody previously had understood the Hebrew word MIN to mean?
Meanwhile, does anybody know where I can get my irony-meter fixed? It just broke.
(Sorry. I couldn’t help it.)
Yes, that is one of the statements which burned out my irony-meter.
Yes I am familiar with the Cyprian et al views about the days being symbolic in terms of thousands of years. However, you are promoting terminological confusion when you try to apply chiliasm in a non-standard way. I can assure you that even 99 out of 100 theologians are going to misunderstand your usage—at least initially until they hear a lot explanation. Not everything having to do with thousands is best described using that term.
Just for kicks, do a Google search and see how many of the definitions of chiliasm and chiliasts conform with your claims.
Yes, if the term wasn’t already well-defined and well-known, you might be justified. But as it is—and just as @Swamidass reacted—you are sure to find much of your audience baffled.
My original post said several Early Church Fathers “interpreted each day of Genesis as 1,000 years”.
You would agree that, when the Fathers are prophetically interpreting Genesis 1, they are interpreting the days as 1000 years, correct? Why do we keep debating? The point is that the dawn of the day-age interpretation of the Hebrew word yom preceded modern science. The genre of interpretation they did this (prophecy version, metaphor version, literal creation part, etc) is not what is important. Science was not the initial cause of the linguistic flexibility in Yom!
Let me see if I can say anything here that will get past the censors/moderators. I’ve now had no less than three of my comments stealth-removed without posting.
You’re not establishing any linguistic flexibility in Yom, because you’re not establishing that the word was being used non-literally. These people you’re citing did understand it literally. They also added an additional layer of meaning on top of the literal.
Accusations of dishonesty like that are not going to be approved. Seriously @PDPrice, you’ve been warned several times before.
Let me state it this way… Yom was used in a symbolic/prophetic context to mean more than 24 hour days before modern science. Agree?
If you agree, can you also agree that many modern approaches to Genesis also see it as a symbolic context, especially the literary framework, and the analogical day view?
I don’t even hold to these views, by the way. I interpret the days literally, LOL. But you can read my paper for that.
We do not normally comment publicly on moderation issues, but I can assure you that you are not being singled out. If you want to chat privately about this, I’d be happy to.
It doesn’t appear that you are understanding what @chad explained to you. (Perhaps you do but I don’t get that impression.)
I didn’t notice anyone denying that was the view of various Church Fathers. Indeed, those additional layers are being emphasized by many participants in this discussion.
Because it would do everyone some good to read this one again …
How does this allow for progress in anything? I took over management of a hundred year old historic hotel, when I asked the staff why they did something odd they always responded with “That’s how we’ve always done it”, and I would answer, “then you’ve always done it wrong”…if we only stick to what we’ve always known, we never make progress. Most if not all inventors and discoverers would agree, science and technology would grind to a halt if we only consider what people see as valid truth in the past. Our world is nowhere near perfect, we have to consider other views.
Our world may not be, but our Bible is. We don’t need progress. We need to hold fast to the “faith once for all delivered to the saints.”
We must distinguish between the “faith given” (infallible writings of apostles) and hermeneutical method (fallible interpretational methods). Surely progress occurs in the latter due to increases in general revelation. Surely all of those before Galileo (1600 years worth) were wrong in their geocentric interpretations of “sun going down” passages. Surely all of those interpreting the earth as flat were wrong in their interpretations of the “four corners of the earth” verses. Progress is necessary in hermeneutics.
Apples and oranges. Good for you regarding your management style. But what a loss when we think that the sacred Scriptures must somehow give way to ‘progress’ in our post modern world.
My summary of this thread goes something like this: I read @chad 's
…with interest at first. I actually carefully read it. I am a broader-minded YEC than most and I was actually willing to discuss particulars of his article above. But then of course I ran into the same brick wall that seems to haunt our modern revisionist’s/theologians…and now ~alas~ even our churches and pastors — EVOLUTION. And you all know me. There was no getting past that one. I truly ended up being very disappointed. I thought perhaps I had run into someone who was truly interested in building bridges - or at least making an attempt - between YECs and OECs.
@chad, just a suggestion. This title completely fails in my view: “A Young Earth Friendly Old Earth Creationism”. I think an appropriate revision might be: “A Young Earth Friendly attempt at Old Earth Creationism”.
One more suggestion and here I echo @PDPrice. The Scriptures did not suddenly gain enlightenment with the advent of your model. Critiques of our ideas really help humble us especially regarding our view of ourselves. Take our critiques to heart. I hope you receive more. They can only help shape you and refine the manner in which you approach others in argument. You do need some reshaping in that area.
Thanks for the effort in your model. I personally cannot join with you, however.
Honest question, what is the “literal” understanding of Yom? It seems to me that it is an unspecified length of finite time, so the term itself is literally unspecified and ambiguous.
Where did this occur again? I missed it. I saw where the idea of human history was to last 6 - 7000 years by some, but whom are you saying made that claim that Creation Days in specific were ages long?
@r_speir, or maybe you meant “Attempt at a young earth friendly old earth creationism”, i.e. I attempted to make it young earth friendly, but didn’t succeed in your case. That’s ok. My major criteria for being young earth friendly was 24 hour days, de novo creation of adam and eve, and not predatory nature of the animals that were told to eat plants before the fall. Perhaps your definition of a young earth friendly is “has to be young earth”? Anyhow, I just did a search in my article and didn’t find the word “EVOLUTION” anywhere in the text. It’s not my focus at all. The focus is on what the text says, how words are used elsewhere, clear patterns I see.
The time it takes Earth to spin one revolution.
Haha, yes now you’ve got it!