If he means to imply they rejected a literal interpretation of God’s creation in Genesis 1, then it’s not valid in most cases. Their beliefs about 1000 year periods of time prefigured by the days exist on top of a literal reading.
Psalm 90:4: For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday when it is past,
And like a watch in the night.
I read this as an ambiguous mathematical statement suggesting that God is outside the constraints of time, not that there is any definitive equation of God’s time to man’s time. Could mean 12 hours, could mean 24, could mean 8 depending on the night watch shift…and the verse uses the term “like yesterday” not day and “like” is not definitive.
2 Peter 3:8: But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Peter reinforces this using the ambiguous term “as” suggesting that it is an open ended analogy, otherwise he would have used “is” or “equals”.
1 Like
Yes, but is also very interesting that @PDPrice is not committed to saying days = 24 hour days. That’s seems to raise surprising questions about why he thinks Scripture demands a young earth.
2 Likes
I can’t imagine where you got that from. I take the days as literal, “24 hour days”, just like the vast majority of those in the early church.
But only in some Genesis contexts and not others.
Where did I get this idea…see here:
That’s pretty close to views I’ve encouraged, like Proclamation Day.
This admission may expose some of the more general problems with polemics. If we come bruising for a fight, we may not be able to see or disclose how we actually can make space for other points of view. All the same, I am glad you note here that this could be true, and perhaps you’d even want it to be true.
Who knows, right? Maybe they were right and the earth actually is older that 6,000 years. Pretty interesting thought to explore. 
2 Likes
Nope, no confusion here. You can look at some of my quotes and research the issue for yourself.
1 Like
Even after I’ve tried to explain it very clearly, you don’t seem to understand what chiliasm means. You still seem to think it involves a rejection of the literal days, which it doesn’t.
It seems that this is the standing response we can expect @chad, is that correct? But that does not seem to address real problems that people are bringing up. My problem, as usual, was evolution. I cannot tolerate in any form or fashion. But still, ignoring me, what about the issue that @PDPrice is addressing? Are you not interested in a discussion?
I don’t think it means rejection of literal days. The strange thing is your certainly that literal days entails rejection of an old earth. 
Yes I’m asserting that both sides have it wrong, and that the truth lies in the middle. Often times the reason for polarized positions is because the truth is somewhere in the middle. I’m not saying that the truth is always in the middle, nor am I searching for a middle for every polarized theological debate, but as for the ones on my website, I believe the truth actually is in the middle. Call it what you will.
3 Likes
Honestly I prefer to debate biblical texts, rather than the philosophy of the naming of my Internet site, but yes I think both sides have it wrong to some degree. The notion of middle ground would mean a separate ground, meaning a different positioning, which is in the middle because some tenants of the one side overlap it, and some tenants of the other side overlap it in the other the other direction . Hence, a middle ground which is different from the other two grounds, yet shares pieces of the other two grounds.
1 Like
Do you realize that means you’re saying that after many thousands of years of church history, you’re actually the first one to get it right? Nobody has properly understood what the Bible teaches until the arrival of your synthesis view?
Cyprian specifically referred to the 7 days as 7,000 years. that is an age for each day, regardless of whether you think that spans all of history or not. If it spans all of history it is simply meaning that Genesis 1 is a figurative representation of history. That’s not what we are debating. we are debating whether the days have been interpreted as a thousand years in ancient ecclesiastical interpretation. The answer is yes.
2 Likes
Meanwhile, what the Church Fathers thought about Genesis 1 and 2 is certainly interesting to many of us, but for some people it seems to be an intense passion, as if the theological views of the Church Fathers were somehow definitive (somehow more “pure” and divinely ordained?) as to what everybody else should believe.
I’ve probably told this story before about being a teenager growing up in a Dispensationalist church tradition and being frustrated that I was expected to believe in a particular brand of pretrib premill theology but not having a firm grasp on all of the proof-texts and arguments. So I finally bought a copy of Dwight Pentecost’s weighty tome, Things To Come. The book was divided into two halves, one about the pretribulational rapture and the other about the “correct” millennium viewpoint.
The millennium portion of the book relied heavily on the idea, basically, that we can be confident that premillennialism is the correct view because it has always been the predominant view from the days of the early Church Fathers right through the Reformation era, some 2000 years of Christian theology. Yet, in the rapture portion of the book he argued that sometimes God reveals his truths gradually and in more impressive and detailed ways over time. So we can be thankful that Mr. Darby introduced Dispensationalism not all that long ago and that it took a while for us to have all of the reasons why the Church should be pro-pretrib!
So I guess one has the option of favoring tradition or favoring new information brings new understanding depending on one’s agenda!
2 Likes
Cyprian was clearly a YEC, who believed the days were literal AND symbolic (he was a chiliast).
To quote from Treatise 11:2
It is an ancient adversary and an old enemy with whom we wage our battle: six thousand years are now nearly completed since the devil first attacked man.
Obviously he wasn’t saying that he was still in Creation Day 6 in his time.
Thank you for reclarifying my original point! I feel like the more he is responding on this topic, it is actually supporting the point all the more, especially with the mention of a two-layered hermeneutic in Genesis 1 that has a day-age aspect in one of the layers.
2 Likes
Yeah, that also what I was thinking too!
2 Likes
Actually, I think the issue is that the fathers were misrepresented by YEC. New information ends up taking us to a more traditional understanding than YEC.
1 Like