Featured Young Earth vs. Old Earth

Third, linguistically, Sailhammer's interpretation denies the literary pattern seen throughout the rest of Genesis 1. The natural reading, that accords with the rest of the chapter, is that all of verses 1-5 occur on Day 1.[/quote]This is where you are walking on thin ice. Sailhamer's view is nothing if not linguistic. His hermeneutic is a linguistic hermeneutic. And the literary pattern in the Hebrew text would have 1:1 as an introduction to the 7 days of creation. But he demonstrates why that does not work, linguistically. The conjunction starting 1:2 would argue as much.


This is where I defy you. First, you cannot know my motives or Sailhamer's. Second, knowing the man's biblical theology, this makes sense that he would interpret the Torah this way and especially the theme of the promised land in Gen. 1. I would suggest that it was quite easy for Sailhamer to conclude his findings, based on his theological predilection.


Again, this has nothing to do with scientists making us re-interpret the Bible. In fact, the reformation has caused us to do that more so (if we are true to sola scriptura). That's why I commend others like N. T. Wright for not be satisfied with the traditional post-reformation interpretation of the evangelicals. We need to keep studying Scripture. We have not arrived, I'm sure you'd agree w/ me. So again, I would warn you about accusing interpretations and men like Sailhamer for acquiescing their views to science. I am fully confident that he arrived at his position prayerfully with a thematic, narratival, biblical theology motive in mind.[/QUOTE]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbs::applause:

 

It is one thing to say someone is competent in a language. Something quite different from saying an individual SPECIALIZES in that. Sailhammer does NOT specialize in linguistics. He is competent....but then, so are many pastors and theologians.

I have provided quotes from some of the foremost specialists in the field, saying that the literal 6 day creation, from a linguistic standpoint, is all but universally held among experts.

Congratulations. You found a single instance. However, even in this case, it's use is distinctly different from what is found in Genesis 1. In Jeremiah 28, the expression is used to refer to the first half of Zedekiah's reign. NOT a period of time, but the first of two halves; notice the qualifying use of the prepositional phrase. This is completely absent from Genesis 1. It is not the "beginning" of anything...it is just the beginning.

Also, even in this use of the term, millions or billions of years would be precluded...that is, unless the remainder of Genesis was billions of years (or I suppose, if you believed there were still billions of years of time to go).

Lastly, the Qal Perfect verb form, used in Genesis 1, most properly refers to an event...not a period of time.

Sailhammer's view is most certainly NOT, primarily, linguistic. He is trying to conform to a particular view of science. And as far as 1:1... not so. 1:1 is God creating the Heavens (expanse/space) and earth. The literary pattern would suggest, from verse 5, that this was done on the first day.

Sure I can. He tells me his motives. From Page 105 of Genesis Unbound:

"Given what appears to be true about the age of the earth, it is likely that millions or billions of years transpired during this time of “the beginning” (Emphasis added)

Again, it has everything to do with trying to contort scripture, to match imaginary evidence from atheists with an a priori commitment to divine exclusion in all that they do. He has as much confessed it in his writings.

Continual study of scripture and adaptation of our views? Yes. Allowing naturalistic "science" to have ANY impact on our interpretation? Absolutely not.

 

I found the following in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. No caveats here! Sounds good to me!

A Short Statement

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.


http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
.

 

I wold say that those who claim to understand the Trinity do not. I would also say that those who use fancy semantics in an effort to explain beyond what God chose to reveal are on shaky ground. [I believe that that is the root of all heresies. And I am not claiming Craig is a heretic. Frankly I never heard of him.] However, that mentality is a consistent failing of many theologians? whose supposed "great learning" gives them a distorted view of their humanity. Remember Bishop Pike who disappeared in Israel looking for the "historical Jesus"!

I would suggest that before anyone gets carried away with Craig's semantics they humbly study Chapters 4 & 5 of the Revelation.

 

This may be the best thing I read here today. :thumbs:

 

Perhaps this might help you to understand Dr. Craig.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity

 

Do you know what his MA/PhD was in at UCLA??? I was not able to confirm, but I know Robert Cole (OT & Hebrew Prof at SEBTS) was his classmate. And according to his CV, his degree was in Ancient Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. That sounds like it dealt in semitic languages on a linguistic level. If the same is true of Sailhamer (and I think it is), then I would say w/ confidence that he is a specialist in semitic languages particularly Hebrew.

 

A little research confirms that Sailhamer was a linguist and his UCLA studies focused on semitic languages. http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=1212 for proof.

 

Great. However, by Sailhammer's own admission, he is attempting to reconcile the text to secular science. He is not, primarily, working from a linguistic standpoint.

Also, as shown, the vast majority of Hebrew scholars disagree with him. Given those two points, his conclusions are, at best, suspect.

 

Suspect is at least a better way to put it. To call his view "absurd" was itself an absurd statement considering the man's background.

And I honestly do not think that the quote you submitted demonstrated that his sole purpose to his interpretation was to square Scripture with an old earth view, although that might have been a sub-motive. Considering the nature of current day biblical theology, his interpretation fits right into the modern advances of the study of sacred space and temple motif in Scripture. His interpretation also does the most justice to the original audience (Jews of the Exodus).

 

Not at all. Richard Dawkins also has an extensive background in his field. His views are still absurd.

No, what it shows is the entire reason the text is even being questioned. This would NEVER be put forth, but for evolutionary cosmology.

Not really. The Jews would have read the text to mean 6 regular days, for the entire creation, as nearly every Hebrew scholar who has addressed the issue has asserted.

 

I disagree... but this is becoming asinine.

 

I agree. God says, "I did it like this,"; NOTHING more asinine than when someone else says, "Well, listen God. These guys that hate you, and want to prove you don't exist? They say they have evidence (which I have never seen...), that you are wrong. So, I am just going to trust THEM, and interpret you to mean something completely contrary to what you actually SAY. And to make it worse, I am going to put forth a bunch of intelligent sounding arguments, that actually don't make any sense, but which are way to convoluted for your average Christ follower to untangle. THAT way, not only will I doubt what you said, I will trick them into doubting you, too."