How do you young earthers know

[Magnetic Poles]

Obviously you must deny the inspiration of the Scriptures as God's revelation to man, not merely to "bronze age" man but to mankind in general.

Secondly, when the Bible uses parables and allegories the context makes it clear. For example, when Jesus spoke in parables he said "hear a parable." Context always provides the key.

There is no indication of any kind of parabolic language, metaphorical or allegorical language in Genesis 1-3.

You must just be just another enemy of God's Word.

[personal attack removed]

 

[Dr. Walter]

Let me note something important before I continue this line of thought. I am not debating or discussing chapter 2 or 3. This is not the issue. The issue is chapter 1.

The Lord's reference to the creation of male and female is Genesis 1:26-27 not Genesis 2-3.


Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

He uses the terms "male and female" and that is not found in Genesis 2 but only in Genesis 1.


Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.


Sorry, but this little factor turns you against the Son of God. Jesus is not referring to Genesis 2 or 3 as that phrase cannot be found but in Genesis 1:26.

So much for the rest of your argument and SECONDARY fallible sources. You do not know what you are talking about.

The problem with Chapter one is significant in that it is poetic language

There is not one whit of evidence that Genesis 1-3 is given in figurative, metaphorical or allegorical langauge. That is pure imagination of an heretical mind.

The Bible always provides a context that makes clear when the writers are using FIGURATIVE language. JESUS DID NOT DEAL WITH GENESIS ONE AS A FIGURE OR METAPHORICAL BUT AS ACTUAL LITERAL HISTORICAL NARRATIVE. AGAIN YOU OPPOSE THE SON OF GOD.

Secondly, let me note that there is a distinction between those who wish to deny the Scripture and their arguments and those who have a strong view of Scriptures and their arguments. Most of the arguments made today against a 6 day creation come from those who wish to attack the Bible. This, however, is not who I am defending and I will not defend such people on this list. I will, however, defend those people that I think are Biblical innerantists who have a case to be made.

The first category are those who reject the inspiration of God's word and the second category are those who have taken the necessary transitionary step toward rejecting the inspiration of God's Word. Both are in opposition to the Son of God and how he regarded Genesis 1-3 and how he dealt with it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

[the personal attack was removed].

You speak reproachfullly against His word.

[The post is edited. Please tone down the rhetoric.]

 

[Ruiz]

The Lord's reference to the creation of male and female is Genesis 1:26-27 not Genesis 2-3.


Ge 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

He uses the terms "male and female" and that is not found in Genesis 2 but only in Genesis 1.


Mt 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Mr 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.


Sorry, but this little factor turns you against the Son of God. Jesus is not referring to Genesis 2 or 3 as that phrase cannot be found but in Genesis 1:26.

So much for the rest of your argument and SECONDARY fallible sources. You do not know what you are talking about.



[

There is not one whit of evidence that Genesis 1-3 is given in figurative, metaphorical or allegorical langauge. That is pure imagination of an heretical mind.

The Bible always provides a context that makes clear when the writers are using FIGURATIVE language. JESUS DID NOT DEAL WITH GENESIS ONE AS A FIGURE OR METAPHORICAL BUT AS ACTUAL LITERAL HISTORICAL NARRATIVE. AGAIN YOU OPPOSE THE SON OF GOD.




The first category are those who reject the inspiration of God's word and the second category are those who have taken the necessary transitionary stept toward rejecting the inspiration of God's Word. Both are in opposition to the Son of God and how he regarded Genesis 1-3 and how he dealt with it.

Walter,

You have yet to engage in the discussion and the issues I brought up. First, poetic language does not mean everything mentioned is literal and everything is not literal. However, we do know that numbers is often not literal. We get this in several places throughout scripture.

No doubt, you are going to try to bring up another example to try to prove your point, but that is not the point of my post. The point of my post is to show that there are exegetical rules that are accepted that others have adhered to in order to show their point. Thus, some used the exegetical rules that numbers in poetic language are not always literal, that the grammar structure for "the first day" could be different than we are translating, so on and so forth. Bringing up other issues like "he made them male and female" is not the issue nor are we discussing exegetical laws. Rather, you are changing the subject.

So, if you want to talk about the exegetical laws then I will engage. If you want to bring up every side issue possible to try to get the discussion side-tracked, go ahead but I am not going to do that.

Rather, what I will do is discuss exegetical laws.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

You provide no substance for your position and that is the mark of ignorance. Secondly, you cannot be a worshipper of God and reject or speak reproachfullly against His word as that is a logical contradiction.

The trouble with idolators like this is they limit God to their finite views and pet interpretation of ancient texts. I would assert there are many scripture texts you too reject...e.g. Stoning to death an unruly son.

 

[Walguy]

The problem with Chapter one is significant in that it is poetic language thus the use of non-literal elements can be accepted without denying Biblical Innerancy.

This is simply not true. There are numerous ways to analyze this text in regards to whether it is intended to be poetry or narrative. Perhaps the most important way is looking at the verb forms that are used. OT passages that are indisputably intended as narrative history are dominated by the preterite verb form. Obvious poetic passages, however, are dominated by the perfect and imperfect verb forms. Genesis 1-3 is highly dominated by the preterite form, strongly indicating that it was written to be understood as narrative history, not poetry subject to non-literal interpretation.
Another contrast between Hebrew poetry and prose is discussed in this article at the ICR site:

http://www.icr.org/article/genesis-history-poetry-exposing-hidden/

ALL the objective evidence points to Genesis 1-3 being classified as narrative that is to be accepted as relating genuine history. The only reason NOT to accept that is to have decided for reasons that have nothing to do with Scripture to believe that the world is vastly older than what the Bible clearly indicates. This includes, as Dr. Walter has pointed out, ignoring or dismissing the clear statements of the Lord Jesus himself regarding this passage. If unbelieving evolutionists are more credible to you than God's Word, that's your choice. Just be honest about it, and stop trying to rewrite the Bible to justify your unbiblical beliefs.

 

[FR7 Baptist]

And you may just be another ignorant bibliolator, worshipping a book over its author.

Just out of curiosity, what position do you hold on the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures?

 

[Havensdad]

Walker,

Let me note something important before I continue this line of thought. I am not debating or discussing chapter 2 or 3. This is not the issue. The issue is chapter 1. The problem with Chapter one is significant in that it is poetic language thus the use of non-literal elements can be accepted without denying Biblical Innerancy (this is commonly accepted by theologians for centuries for poetic and prophetic literature).

Actually, analysis of the text shows it be very non-poetic. It is written in the form of Hebraic historical narrative, much like the rest of the Pentateuch and 1 and 2 Chronicles. It is decidedly non-poetic, especially when compared to the true Hebraic poetry found in places such as Psalms.

 

[Walguy]

Actually, analysis of the text shows it be very non-poetic. It is written in the form of Hebraic historical narrative, much like the rest of the Pentateuch and 1 and 2 Chronicles. It is decidedly non-poetic, especially when compared to the true Hebraic poetry found in places such as Psalms.

I believe I just said that.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Literal statement or figurative words:

1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Literal statement of figuragive words:

And God said, - v. 1

And God said,- v. 6

And God said, - v. 9

And God said, - v. 11

And God said, - v. 14

And God said, - v. 20

And God said, - v. 24

And God said, - v. 26

And God said, - v. 29


Literal or Figurative:

Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Ps 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Ps 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

[Havensdad]

The trouble with idolators like this is they limit God to their finite views and pet interpretation of ancient texts. I would assert there are many scripture texts you too reject...e.g. Stoning to death an unruly son.

So you follow Jesus the sunflower? Or Jesus' the gardener down the street? What Jesus do you serve?

It is sad, and sick, that Christians would rather put their faith in atheists who hate God (the so-called secular scientists), instead of the clear Word of God which Jesus himself held high.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Walter,

You have yet to engage in the discussion and the issues I brought up.

Trying to change the subject!!! Why? because Christ referred directly to Genesis 1:26 and so you cannot avoid His condemnation of your whole theory???? You are opposing the Son of God. He did not handle Genesis 1 or Genesis 1-3 as anything but literal and historical.

First, poetic language does not mean everything mentioned is literal and everything is not literal. However, we do know that numbers is often not literal. We get this in several places throughout scripture.

No doubt, you are going to try to bring up another example to try to prove your point, but that is not the point of my post. The point of my post is to show that there are exegetical rules that are accepted that others have adhered to in order to show their point. Thus, some used the exegetical rules that numbers in poetic language are not always literal, that the grammar structure for "the first day" could be different than we are translating, so on and so forth. Bringing up other issues like "he made them male and female" is not the issue nor are we discussing exegetical laws. Rather, you are changing the subject.

So, if you want to talk about the exegetical laws then I will engage. If you want to bring up every side issue possible to try to get the discussion side-tracked, go ahead but I am not going to do that.

Rather, what I will do is discuss exegetical laws.

I will give you something to talk about. Talk about my last post where I asked if the langauge was literal or figurative.

 

[Walguy]

And you may just be another ignorant bibliolator, worshipping a book over its author.

Let me see if I have this straight. In your view, if someone believes anything relating to Christianity that you disagree with, regardless of what the Bible says about it, that person must be an idolator, 'worshiping a book over its author.' Seems to me that's exactly the same as the way some liberals insist that anyone who ever disagrees with Obama must be a racist.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The trouble with idolators like this is they limit God to their finite views and pet interpretation of ancient texts. I would assert there are many scripture texts you too reject...e.g. Stoning to death an unruly son.

You are advertising your complete ignorance of God's Word. Do you know what a Theocracy is? Apparently not or you would not even use the example your abusing!

 

[Dr. Walter]

The trouble with idolators like this is they limit God to their finite views and pet interpretation of ancient texts. I would assert there are many scripture texts you too reject...e.g. Stoning to death an unruly son.

Tell me, apart from The Biblical revelation how do you even know what an "idolator" is? How do you even know what "God" is? How do you know you are not an idolator???

 

[Dr. Walter]

Come on fellas, I would like an answer if you really think Genesis 1 is not historical narrative then harmonize the first two groups of references from Genesis 1 with the last group below!

Literal statement or figurative words:

1 ¶ In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Literal statement of figuragive words:

And God said, - v. 1

And God said,- v. 6

And God said, - v. 9

And God said, - v. 11

And God said, - v. 14

And God said, - v. 20

And God said, - v. 24

And God said, - v. 26

And God said, - v. 29


Literal or Figurative:

Heb. 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Ps 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Ps 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

Ps 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

[Ruiz]

This is simply not true. There are numerous ways to analyze this text in regards to whether it is intended to be poetry or narrative. Perhaps the most important way is looking at the verb forms that are used. OT passages that are indisputably intended as narrative history are dominated by the preterite verb form. Obvious poetic passages, however, are dominated by the perfect and imperfect verb forms. Genesis 1-3 is highly dominated by the preterite form, strongly indicating that it was written to be understood as narrative history, not poetry subject to non-literal interpretation.
Another contrast between Hebrew poetry and prose is discussed in this article at the ICR site:

http://www.icr.org/article/genesis-history-poetry-exposing-hidden/

ALL the objective evidence points to Genesis 1-3 being classified as narrative that is to be accepted as relating genuine history. The only reason NOT to accept that is to have decided for reasons that have nothing to do with Scripture to believe that the world is vastly older than what the Bible clearly indicates. This includes, as Dr. Walter has pointed out, ignoring or dismissing the clear statements of the Lord Jesus himself regarding this passage. If unbelieving evolutionists are more credible to you than God's Word, that's your choice. Just be honest about it, and stop trying to rewrite the Bible to justify your unbiblical beliefs.

This is actually a good post, and as a young earther I argue that it is prose. However, the other side notes the couplets that are formed and the organization is poetic in nature. Verb uses may be an indication, but not always as in the Psalms we have a variety of verb uses in clear poetry. The indication of the days is metrical as is one of the culminating verses (27). Most scholars note that there are elements of poetry but they also note that it lacks the tightly held prosodic parallelism. However, there is a parellelism that exists in the text but that can be either prose or poetic. The question is whether that is enough to make this poetic or not. The debate on the Hebrew continues and young earthers are on both sides of this discussion.

Your notation that this is prose also is not helpful in that there is much in prose in Hebrew that is elevated, a form of medium between poetry and the type of prose that we understand in English.

I can point you to a number of Hebrew Scholars who believe this is poetic, and a number who believe this is simple prose, not elevated.

For my purpose, I think this is a debate that continues to rage among Hebrew Scholars. Even if it is prose, it may be elevated prose and thus elements can still be treated as poetic.

While I believe it is prose, I am not ready to surrender all arguments of poetic language in Genesis 1 or unelevated prose as I recognize some possible elements of poetry or elevated prose.

 

[Ruiz]

Trying to change the subject!!! Why? because Christ referred directly to Genesis 1:26 and so you cannot avoid His condemnation of your whole theory???? You are opposing the Son of God. He did not handle Genesis 1 or Genesis 1-3 as anything but literal and historical.






I will give you something to talk about. Talk about my last post where I asked if the langauge was literal or figurative.

The issue is exegetical rules. that is the issue. I agree with the citations from Jesus as being literal, I know of no conservative scholar who disagrees with that. Thus, that is not the issue.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Just out of curiosity, what position do you hold on the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures?

I believe much is allegory to teach moral issues and eternal truths. Some is a collection of historic events.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The issue is exegetical rules. that is the issue. I agree with the citations from Jesus as being literal, I know of no conservative scholar who disagrees with that. Thus, that is not the issue.

It most certainly is the issue! Jesus did not handle or treat it as anything but literal and historical factual narrative and you allow for a theory that makes Christ either ignorant or a liar or both.

Again, take my challenge of the previus post and tell me how you harmonize the first two groups with the last group in regard to the question of poetical or literal historical narrative.