I don't believe this refers to physical, created worlds, but to the two separate "ages" (aeones). Take a look at other uses of this word in this epistle.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Young Earth vs. Old Earth
- Thread starter evangelist6589
- Start date
I don't believe this refers to physical, created worlds, but to the two separate "ages" (aeones). Take a look at other uses of this word in this epistle.
Sailhammer, for all his contributions, is not FOREMOST a Hebrew Scholar. His specialty is Old Testament theology; a related but distinct field from linguistics.
By way of comparison, you would be hard pressed to name a SINGLE specialist in Ancient Hebrew, who would give credence to anything other than a 6 day creation; much less Dr. Sailhammer's view. The majority opinion among the Church fathers, and BY FAR the majority opinion of experts in Ancient Hebrew language and culture, is that Genesis 1 is teaching that the entire Creation was made in 6 regular days, start to finish.
Secondly, I defy you. Having done a search, myself, through the Old Testament Hebrew canon, there is not a single time where it is used to refer to a period of time at all. It is ALWAYS used to refer to either the "first" of something, or the "beginning" or START of something. It does not refer to a period of time at all.
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.
Fourth, the only reason why any of this is even up for discussion, is because a bunch of atheists, with twisted, corrupt minds, unregenerate hearts, and a desire to deny the scriptures, have TOLD you, and others, that the earth is old. They have done experiments, which at the outset will not even consider the possibility of a creator, or special creation, to try to "prove" their views. They use this same reasoning on the resurrection of Jesus. It goes like this; "Well, we know Jesus didn't rise from the dead, so how did these stories occur?" They then go on to "prove" what really happened to Jesus.
The same thing with age of the earth issues. The "scientists" say, "Well, we know God did not just speak this stuff into existence. So how do we explain it?" They then come up with the most absurd of explanations, of how things occurred, without the work of God.
That is not the sad part, however. These are God hating, unregenerate rebels. This is to be expected. What is sad, is that "men of God" hear there intellectual snobbery, and go "Well, they must be right. How do we change scripture to accord with what they are saying?" The saddest part is, this is not even the theologians doing the experiments...they just place their faith in the God hating atheists, and their word that such things are so!
Sorry, but the scriptures are clear. God PROMISES to lead us to truth, and to Godliness, THROUGH HIS WORD. Not through following secular, naturalistic "science."
Certainly. you are correct...but I think no one is suggesting that....God has revealed himself to mankind through more than the Scriptures alone, See Romans 1, according to which, Nature alone is enough to condemn men. That is a powerful statement...If nature is adequate revelation to render mankind "without excuse" and furthermore to suggest things such as..."Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" (1 Corinthians 11: 14) Then nature itself is indeed a powerful revelation of God. Of course, Scripture takes the highest priority and authority....and no obviously clear Scriptural statement is to be disregarded because our admittedly flawed understanding seems to go against it.
Rather....our understanding of God as revealed through the study of God's creation, may help us to understand/ "rightly divide the word of truth". It is interesting and I think important to note that in Calvin's day, and back through the Middle ages themselves....N
NE was permitted to study Theology until they had mastered the liberal arts....at the time understood to be: Grammar, Dialectic/Logic, Mathematics (specifically Trigonometry I believe) Philosophy and Rhetoric. Now consider Calvin's statement in light of this....Specifically: Note this: an Historical background has helped me shed some light on specific details or a deeper understanding of what Calvin is trying to convey here.....Similarly....Our knowledge of Nature as we understand it may help....not disagree with the ultimate authority of Scripture or cause us to doubt it...but rather to understand what it is trying to explain to us.
Allow me to add this: Anyone who makes statements akin to this: "Man's logic" or "Man's fallible reason" should automatically throw up a red flag for you that on some levels....they may very well have no idea what they are talking about. I am personally a young-Earther too BTW..
I never said anyone was. But I can say it does get said quite often by some of those who support an old earth.
Double talk
YOU may be hard-pressed to find one, but, this took me about 45 seconds.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwA7bvco7ow&feature=related
A particular, and very correct....statement, belabored by the expert I cited above: a correct little factoid that his superior brain uses to make us (young-Earthers) and I am one... look rather ignorant.
This, I think, is an unecessarily broad equivocation
:sleep: Oh, o.k. because the two are assumed to perpetually be at odds with one another....Usually, this is called "double-speak" not "double-talk" but nonetheless....I assume you are attempting to convey that I have contradicted myself (that is what double-speak is)....I would ask you to simply quote copy and paste the contradiction I posted, and I will recant....Just read the sentence again and utilize the regular rules of gammar: Shall I say it differently? How about this:
"Scientific/natural knowledge of God's creation should not ever be used to discredit/ cast doubt upon God's written revelation, but rather it may be used to help us understand or "rightly divide" what God's written revelation is trying to convey" I now defy you Mandym to explain to all of us, publically, how I am guilty of this "double talk " thingy you speak of...or how my above statement is somehow false or misguided...do tell....we await.
Ok maybe....so what...did I claim you said that?
Last edited by a moderator:
Brother, I do not see a Hebrew scholar at the link you give. Please understand, a Hebrew scholar is someone who has as his primary field, Linguistics... their degrees/studies are in Ancient Hebrew.
Neither Walter Kaiser (who is, like Sailhammer, an Old Testament Scholar; his field is not linguistics...), NOR Hugh Ross (whose degrees are in secular science) are Hebrew scholars.
Try again.
Not sure of your point.
Not at all. One of the central tenets of Natural Science, is that divine or supernatural intervention is a priori excluded. Under no circumstances, is ANYTHING allowed to be ascribed to God.
Since one of the fuoundational tenets of NATURAL science, is that divine or supernatural considerations are excluded out of hand...yes, they are. This goes without saying. If someone says "We are going to figure out how this happened, and under no circumstance will we ascribe its occurrence to God," then they are absolutely pitting themselves AGAINST the Bible..
I just laughed out loud...literally, and I'm still chuckling.:laugh:
I can name three or four off the top of my head that aren't 6 day creationists. If is a foolish statement to make such a blanket claim about a diversified field.
Walter Kaiser is NOT a Hebrew Scholar. He is an Old Testament scholar. His field is not linguistics.
Amid your laughing, could you please post some links of people with Doctorates in Ancient Hebrew linguistics, who agree with John Sailhammer regarding his take on Genesis 1:1 ?
Thanks.
Can you please give a us a listing of institutions that offer this degree...
Well for what its worth Kaiser is respected throughout the world for his work on this issue, specifically at the textual level. I don't think you've fully grasped what his PhD is in, specifically since he got from Brandeis. Anyhoo...
Havensdad said:
Well your original challenge was anyone with a PhD in Hebrew (you can't get a PhD in "Ancient" Hebrew linguistics...that doesn't make sense...you get a degree in Hebrew and that covers it.) So I'm gonna stick with you original challenge:
1. Nahum Sarna
2. Karen Strand Winslow
3. Cyrus H. Gordon
4. Robert Alter
5. Gerhard von Rad
I can add more, do you want me to keep going?
Sure. Hebrew Union College offers a Phd Ancient Near Eastern Language and literature, with an emphasis in Ancient Hebrew. Cornell offers one in Ancient Near eastern languages and cultures as well. There is also the University of Wisconsin, Yale, etc.
There are several.
For instance, James Barr, who said this:
“So far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story.”
Had his primary field as Semitic linguistics...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Barr_(biblical_scholar)
Dr. Hugh G.M. Williamson, who said this about Barr's blanket statement...:
“So far as the days of Genesis 1 are concerned, I am sure that Professor Barr was correct. . . . I have not met any Hebrew professors who had the slightest doubt about this unless they were already committed to some alternative by other considerations that do not arise from a straightforward reading of the Hebrew text as it stands.”
Also has his primary field and work in the Hebrew language...
http://www.orinst.ox.ac.uk/staff/hjs/hwilliamson.html
Dr. Peter Williams, of Tydale house...also with work in the appropriate area of study, said this:
“Although the Young Universe Creationist position is not widely held within secular academia, the position—that the author of Genesis 1 maintained that the world was created in six literal days—is nearly universally held.”
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/index.php?page=peter-williams
Just a few...
Not a single one of his recognized works, deals with primarily linguistic issues. They are theological works. There is a fairly wide gap there...
Sure you can. Several universities (see above post) offer degrees specifically in ancient Semitic languages, with an emphasis on Hebrew. There is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between modern Hebrew usage, and ancient Hebrew.
Sarna rejected literal interpretation of scripture. Never that I am aware, does he question the linguistic structure. He basically stated that Genesis was not to be read literally.
Also does not base her argument on linguistics, but on a DENIAL of the literal truthfulness of the text. She also denies other fundamental New Testament doctrine for this same reason, FYI.
Not familiar with this gentleman, but expect that the same is true.
Again, denial that the text is accurate, NOT a denial of the linguistics.
Same as above. Understand that there is a substantial difference between saying that the text is not to be read literally, and so the scholar interprets it in a non-literal fashion, and arguing from the point of linguistic forms.
Yes. And please, this time don't give scholars who argue that the text is not to be taken literally. Instead, give names of scholars who read the text literally, and argue from a linguistic standpoint; not from a theologically driven one.
So basically I fulfill your request and you just find anything wrong with that and defer, defer, defer...gotcha I see what you're up to.
Not at all. This is common sense. If you are going to argue that someone can read the text literally (not simply deny its truthfulness!), and come up with a certain interpretation based on linguistic forms, then you need to find authorities in the field who argue for the linguistic form; not someone who says that the text cannot be trusted as written.
That is just basic reason. You do not need to find people who say the writer was wrong, you need to find serious scholars, for instance, who say the word "reshith" can linguistically refer to long periods of time. It is telling that the only people who support the view, are the people whose work is NOT in that field, and are approaching the text with theological presuppositions, or people who simply deny that the scriptures are accurate.
"Reshith" you keep using that word....have I missed something??.....(perhaps I have)....but isn't the word used in Genesis 1 "Yom"
Reshith is the Hebrew word translated "Beginning" in Genesis 1:1, as in "In the Reshith, God created the heavens and the earth"
Sailhammer tries to make this into a extended period of time (millions/billions of years, perhaps?), even though the word never refers to a period of time, but the FIRST or START of a period of time...
To clarify John Sailhamer's position a bit I'll quote a brief portion of a chapter devoted to this word.
The practice of an extended 'beginning" can also be observed in the NT in the following verses.
He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
Matthew 19:4 (NRSV)
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
Mark 10:6 (NRSV)
Rob
The practice of an extended 'beginning" can also be observed in the NT in the following verses.
He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’
Matthew 19:4 (NRSV)
But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’
Mark 10:6 (NRSV)
Rob
Last edited by a moderator:
Sailhammer is incorrect. Reshith NEVER refers to a period of time in the Old Testament. It refers to the beginning moment, or the first of something.
In regards to Nimrod, I am particularly astounded at Sailhammer's poor accounting of the text in Genesis 10, referring to Nimrod's kingdom. The word reshith is not being used to refer to a period of time at all, but the first parts of Nimrod's kingdom.
Gen 10:10 The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar.
Certainly the New Testament passages he cites, do NOT refer to any "extended beginning" (and if they did it would matter little; this is a completely different word). Saying "in the beginning" God made them male and female, is an ABSURD statement, if billions of years of time have occurred since the "beginning" and only thousands since the creation of Adam and Eve.
Again, the natural reading of the text, and the clear pattern given, is that verses 1-5 occur on Day 1.
Last edited by a moderator:
Greektim
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
[/quote]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.