I did not know you knew the man. To study the HOT with the composition theory of Sailhamer, one must be a specialist in Hebrew and TNKh. So there does not have to be this incompatible "theologian is not a linguist/scholar" duality that you want. The best theologians are grammarians. Sailhamer knows the text... he knows his Hebrew Bible... that comes from a thorough working of Hebrew. I wouldn't sell him short. Plus, his MA PhD at UoCal is not a theology degree.
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.
Jer. 28:1 qualifies "beginning" as 4 years and 1 month into the reign of Zedekiah. There his beginning was not the first day or even first year of his reign. It was a period of time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
