Genesis 1: the obvious reading??

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

=============================================================================================

 

 

We've been down that road before - I read Day 1 to begin with God saying, "Let there be light."

 

I've been down many roads    And we have an Accord...."Let there be light" 

 

 

If God is light, I fail to understand why He had to create it.

 

Which "Light" are we talking about?  Gen 1:1 Light?  Sun/Moon/Starlight?....So we could see and have heat/photosynthesis Signs and Seasons without HIM Physically placing himself there....? 

 

And I didn't make this up; and it speaks directly to "Without The Sun" ......

 

(Revelation 22:5) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."

 

(Isaiah 60:19) "The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory."

 

and....

 

(Isaiah 2:5) "O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD."

 

(1 John 1:5) "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

 

 

And if God is all that there was before He created anything, where did the darkness come from?

 

HE Created it....

 

(Isaiah 45:7) "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things."

 

Interestingly, HE said HE "Formed" the Light.  Where's Shiloh ?? 

 

 

Whatever answers you gave for these didn't make sense to me before, and I doubt they will make any more sense now.

 

The Isaiah, 1 John, and the Revelation Passages don't make any sense?

 

"Using scripture as evidence doesn't really work if your intended audience doesn't agree with your interpretation of that Scripture."

 

Preposterous!!.....Then there would be no way to ascertain Absolute Truth.  Everybody would be stuck in "Their Interpretation".  

 

(Exodus 20:11) "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."

 

That's like saying: "I really don't understand what the LORD is saying here ??  :rolleyes:    "I think it meant 6 Million years"..."well, I think it meant really long days, no way to tell".   Do you think that's gonna fly? ...yea, me neither.

 

 

And that is where we are stuck.

 

I'm not "stuck"

[nebula]

If God is light, I fail to understand why He had to create it.

 

Which "Light" are we talking about?  Gen 1:1 Light?  Sun/Moon/Starlight?....So we could see and have heat/photosynthesis Signs and Seasons without HIM Physically placing himself there....? 

 

And I didn't make this up; and it speaks directly to "Without The Sun" ......

 

(Revelation 22:5) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."

 

(Isaiah 60:19) "The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory."

 

and....

 

(Isaiah 2:5) "O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD."

 

(1 John 1:5) "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

 

Sorry Enoch, but you clearly are not understanding my train of thought, and I'm tired of trying to explain it.

[Tristen]

You said “It has been claimed on this site that Genesis 1 is "obviously" pure narrative.  By pure narrative I mean that the genre of the text excludes the following: allegory, poetic liturgy, myth etc”

 

The creationist position is that Genesis is written as historical narrative – meaning that every grammatical indication from the text itself suggests that the author intended the text to represent an historical rendering of events.

 

Symbolic language is normally accompanied by grammatical indicators which make the meaning obvious to the intended audience. No such indicators are intrinsic to the text of Genesis 1 itself (and there are several grammatical indicators pointing to historical narrative). To question Genesis as history, one therefore has to read extraneous information into the text.

 

Furthermore, all symbolism requires an antecedent – i.e. it has to be symbolic of something. There is no indication of any antecedent to Genesis 1. The historical rendering of Genesis itself is often used as the antecedent of other passages of scripture.

 

 

 

“Elsewhere I proposed that YEC is based not primarily on exegesis but on something akin to fear”

 

Logical fallacies render an argument to be technically irrational (because they don’t actually speak to the rational quality of an opposing argument). The logical fallacy you employ here is called an Appeal to Motives.

 

 

 

“YEC begins first with the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history; then proceeds to look for the “proofs” that it is so. But of course all exegesis or science performed after the conclusion is formed is nothing more than a charade; everything becomes evidence in favor of the verdict, for desperation can find almost anything almost anywhere”

 

There are two main issues I see here;

 

1. All argument and investigation (including scientific) incorporates presupposition. In hypothesis testing, the hypothesis itself incorporates an initial, presupposed claim of truth. But even before any hypothesis is attempted, all humans have allegiances to unverifiable claims regarding the ultimate nature of reality. Therefore all humans bring presupposition to the scientific process. Faith presuppositions (paradigms) necessarily limit what can be considered by the interpreter as truth. To suggest that this only applies to YECs is an exercise in Special Pleading (another logical fallacy).

 

2. The claim is also anachronistically wrong. The historical rendering of Genesis only became the subject of serious debate subsequent to the popularisation of secular models. Prior to that, the historical intent of Genesis was rarely questioned – because there was no indication from the text itself that any other interpretation was justified. It is only after externally-based criticisms of the historical viability of Genesis are raised, that creationist will argue the foundational importance of historical Genesis to other Biblical doctrines. That is – our position does NOT start with “the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history”, our position starts with the grammatical examination of Genesis. Then, in response to extraneous attacks on the historical nature of Genesis raised by other Christians, we will sometimes argue the fundamental importance of historical Genesis to Christian doctrine and philosophy. You have it the wrong way around.

 

 

 

“It is near impossible to imagine such a conglomeration of unformed matter hanging out in infinite space.  Do we still have a spherical object before us?  No, for the dome (the expanse) will not yet be created until day 2.  What is it then that keeps the waters from drifting off.  More so, how is it that the waters are not frozen at absolute 0? My immediate response to these questions is, “Perhaps we are not dealing with that kind of text.””

 

Such questions are logically valid (as are any creationist speculations regarding the laws of physics). However, we must be cautious not to force our own presupposition onto the text. Genesis 1 provides an overview of an explicitly supernatural creation event. It is not a Methods, Materials and Results section of a scientific paper being submitted for peer review. The text doesn’t give those ‘scientific’ details because that’s not its purpose. We are simply not told where the supernatural ends and the (newly created) laws of physics kick in. But that lack of specific detail does not itself logically justify relegating Genesis to the realm of the symbolic.

 

 

 

Day 1

 

The Bible does not describe the light as “source-less” – it merely doesn’t detail if there was any specific source beyond the creative power of God Himself. “Evening and morning” define allocations of time. The Creator of the universe has no necessary reliance upon “luminaries” to know how much time has passed.

 

 

 

Day 3

 

There is no indication in the text that God ‘grew’ anything at any “rate”. Like the rest of the universe, plant life came into existence through an act of creation.

 

“Can God do this?  Of course!  But why should I assume He has?”

 

You don’t have to assume anything. This is the straight forward claim of the text. A more telling question might be, ‘Why would you assume otherwise – why would you assume that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says?”

 

 

 

Day 4 “Luminaries set in the sky.  I confess I do not know what gravitational effects such a sudden appearance of enormous matter in our proximity would have on us”

 

One could reasonably assume that the Creator of the universe is in no way inhibited by the effects of laws which He Himself also created. Biblical claims are formulated within the context of a Supernatural Creator. You are judging supernatural claims by the standard of a naturalistic premise. Arguments are only ever rationally obligated to be consistent with the premise within which they are formulated.

 

It’s like telling an atheist they are wrong because ‘the Bible says so’ – the atheist premise has been disregarded; rendering the argument to be meaningless to the atheist. You are committing the same logical error by insisting a naturalistic explanation of an explicitly supernatural event.

 

“I am told by the scientists that the stars are billions of miles away and that even light must take its time in getting here.  This creates something of a problem; the stars are for signs and seasons”

 

My full response to the distant starlight problem can be found here;

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/175434-the-distant-starlight-problem/page-6#entry2062110

 

Of note is that the secular model also has a starlight/time problem (the horizon problem) – which they solve by invoking a hypothetical rapid expansion of light and space (millions of times faster than what YEC requires) to account for the observed dissemination of energy in the universe – called Inflation. Inflation has no plausible initial cause or reason for slowing down. It has no basis in direct observation whatsoever (i.e. it was not directly observed). It simply fits the math. So why aren’t you as sceptical of the cosmology model presented by “the scientists”?

 

 

“my question is (and has been) why do I need to invoke scientific speculation, unless I have come to the text determined that it is pure narrative?”

 

But the nature of the text not predetermined. That’s the point. No sincere believer considers themselves to have the right to merely assign Biblical texts as symbolic or historical. Any such claim has to be justified by the grammatical context of the passage itself – i.e. absent of any presupposition which is extraneous to the Bible itself.

[Enoch2021]

 

If God is light, I fail to understand why He had to create it.

 

Which "Light" are we talking about?  Gen 1:1 Light?  Sun/Moon/Starlight?....So we could see and have heat/photosynthesis Signs and Seasons without HIM Physically placing himself there....? 

 

And I didn't make this up; and it speaks directly to "Without The Sun" ......

 

(Revelation 22:5) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever."

 

(Isaiah 60:19) "The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory."

 

and....

 

(Isaiah 2:5) "O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD."

 

(1 John 1:5) "This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."

 

Sorry Enoch, but you clearly are not understanding my train of thought, and I'm tired of trying to explain it.

 

 

OK, No Problem.

[a-seeker]

 

 

Light as we know it is based on waves and particles.  Trace them back and you will get to a source.  Today, we ultimately get to stars (ours or the billion others).  Back then, you would get (you say) to God.  What would you see once you traced the light all the way back to its source?

 

 

 

God is the one who said let their be light.  He created the light.  He is the source.  I don’t see what you are trying to argue with on that.   I didn’t make it up.  It’s right there in the Bible.

 

 

Light is physical phenomenon.  Like water it has a physical source in our experience.  If I were in a very dark cave and saw a small point of light through a crack, I would assume that it had a source: either a lamp lit in some room, or coming directly from the sun.  God said, "let there be light".  Where is the light's Physical source?  From where are the waves and particles generating?  I am not speaking of its "ultimate cause" but its physical source.  What on day one corresponds to a lamp, or a sun, or any other physical source of physical light?

 

But again I don't want to get bogged down here.  My point is that the questions which arise from a quick reading of Scripture, and more so, the answers which I am forced to accept on the basis that God intended GEnesis to be an historical narrative, begs for other genres to be considered.

 

 

 

 

 

 

If every physical entity has a physical source, does that make some physical entity eternal?  I mean how far back do you go with the source of the source of the source?  What is the proof that every physical entity has a physical source?

 

I am not sure we are on the same page here:

 

There is a difference between cause and source.  The source of light is the sun; the cause of the sun is God as Creator.  The point of this entire thread (I think, I can't always remember what thread I am responding to) was to show that the obvious reading of Genesis 1 was not historical narrative; that there were enough oddities in it to at least test other genres. On day one we have light appear with no source (God of course is the Cause): follow the light and where does it lead: to say, "to God" suggests that God is physical, or locally present, or something other than what theology holds Him to be.  Is there a scientific explanation that can get around this?  Probably, but I have no reason to search for one until I am sure that the text is intended as historical narrative.  It seems that many YECers (notice I am not saying all) begin with the assumption that the text is an historical narrative--and I suspect the assumption is based (for many) not on exegesis (i.e. testing the intended genre) but on something akin to fear--the fear that if Genesis 1 cannot be trusted as literal than the rest of the Bible cannot be trusted as well: and there goes our Resurrection and what not.

 

The point of this thread was very specific and I think most people have missed it--it was not really to disprove 6/day.  It was to establish a case for other options.  The only grounds that I can see for rejecting that case is fear.

 

hope that helps

 

clb

[Enoch2021]

For all the OEC'ers and Light Year/Starlight Folks:

 

I wanted to get back to a point they may have gotten lost in the Background Noise....

 

 

 

 

 

The Farthest Galaxies had to release their Light Long Long Long before the Closer Galaxies

 

The Further Galaxies did not have as much time to Spiral (Rotate and Twist their Arms)

 

The Closer Galaxies should have the most Twist!!

 

Why don't they!!   In fact, it looks almost Opposite.  Can Anyone Riddle me this Apparent Conundrum?

 

 

Any Takers?  

[a-seeker]

 

 

That is, the YEC begins first with the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history; then proceeds to look for the “proofs” that it is so. But of course all exegesis or science performed after the conclusion is formed is nothing more than a charade; everything becomes evidence in favor of the verdict, for desperation can find almost anything almost anywhere.

 

Where to begin with this mess?  So what your saying is; it is wrong for us "YEC" to Trust the PLAIN WORD OF GOD first?  So we should go to "science" or Fables or Myths first then use this as our Hermeneutic Filter for the WORD OF GOD?

 

 

 

It is wrong to open up any document assuming that you know the literary genre of the document.  The scientific maneuvers you make (saying the laws were different) are necessary only if Genesis 1 is intended as historical narrative.  It is also, if not wrong, then unwise, to begin answering a post before reading it all the way through.  My point is that there is enough confusion generated when reading Genesis 1 as an historical narrative to question whether that is the appropriate genre.

That was the point of the experiment—it was contended that a 12 year old could read Genesis 1 and see that it was historical narrative.  My contention is not that YEC is wrong, but that Genesis 1 is not CLEARLY an historical narrative.

Also, it is incautious to read through a post and respond to it every time something catches your eye; read through the post entirely and carefully.  The above response is the very opposite of what I was saying.  Again, when selecting a small portion to quote, don’t respond to that small portion—keep the whole context in mind and respond to that.

 

And above all, keep your cool.  Sass and causticity are not impressive and make it appear that you are losing ground.  Also, I don't know what half your emoticons "emote".

 

I am told by the scientists that the stars are billions of miles away

 

They also told us Piltdown Man was our relative, Archaeopteryx was a Feathered Dinosaur, and Soft Tissue can Last for 80 Million Years.

 

And, of course they (and you), are "begging the question" FALLACY with the current Speed of Light and Extrapolating that Back to the Beginning.  Assuming the very thing they (and you) are trying to prove....http://logical-criti...g-the-question/

 

And "scientists" @ current, know as much about Light as they know about Gravity...which isn't much.

 

However, they (the stars) could be that far...it's irrelevant to the YEC position anyway...more on that in a minute.

 

 

 

 

Again, these are the types of scientific maneuvers I would make if I began reading Genesis 1 already assuming it was historical narrative.  There is simply no reason for me to even entertain the possibility that the behavior of light or any natural process was radically different, unless I held to a literary theory of Genesis that required me to do so.  But I can't discern its genre until I open it up and read it.  At a cursory reading, it is not obvious that it is historical narrative.  Perhaps it is; the point of my experiment is that it is not obvious and begs that other genres be tested.

 

Nor will I labor the point that I am not necessarily an OEC; I think the YEC interpretation dead wrong, but I don't necessarily think that the scientists are right.

 

So you're like "Fence Riding"/Switzerland,  neither Hot nor Cold?  You think YEC is dead wrong?  Will you @ some point Support this Statement or just leave it like the Strawman above?

 

 

I did; it was taken “off the air”; twice.  I was permitted to invite someone into a one on one discussion.  I invited Shiloh.  He declined.  Would you like to?

clb

 

 

 

 

 

===================================================================================================

 

 

First I'm looking @ my rebuttal to your post on another Browser...you didn't deal with approx 75% of what I said

 

 

The scientific maneuvers you make (saying the laws were different) are necessary only if Genesis 1 is intended as historical narrative.

 

Scietific maneuvers, eh?  Well because it is a Historic Narrative Connor, for cryin out loud.

 

This is what I see....  I'm saying that 1 + 1 = 2...you're saying 1 + 1 = 3.  For us to move forward with anything, we have to establish the foundation, Right?  No sense in discovering any other mysteries because it's a waste of time and useless off of a faulty base.

 

(saying the laws were different)

 

This is what I'm talking about.   I'm sorry you can't see this, I truly am.  You see the sky as Green I say it's Blue.... AND I'm not only telling you it's Blue, I'm pulling WORD FOR WORD SCRIPTURE and showing you.

 

 

Also, it is incautious to read through a post and respond to it every time something catches your eye; read through the post entirely and carefully.  Again, when selecting a small portion to quote, don’t respond to that small portion—keep the whole context in mind and respond to that.

 

How in the WORLD would you know whether I did or didn't ??????  Just because I quote a small piece????  Is it possible Connor, that I read your whole post multiple times and for Format and Brevity decided to just quote the JIST??  Is that Possible?

 

 

And above all, keep your cool.  Sass and causticity are not impressive and make it appear that you are losing ground.  Also, I don't know what half your emoticons "emote".

 

Connor, truthfully; I'm reaching the end of discussions with you.  They get bogged down in Trivial, Quibbling, Assumption Laden, Color Commentary and Emotional  diatribes.

 

 

that the behavior of light or any natural process was radically different,

 

I am Absolutely Stupefied Connor.  Here's an emoticon that perfectly illustrates a complete summation of this statement, I think you might understand this one.....    I must have posted a demonstrable 1 + 1 = 2, CLEAR and Obvious, Thoroughly Documented Scripture Laden Rebuttal to this @ least 20 times....I'm @ the end.

 

 

Connor you seem like a Good Man to me...... so it's not personal.  If my replies have come off as Condescending or Arrogant I am Truly sorry, it's not and wasn't my intent.

 

But I have provided Counter Arguments with a METRIC TON of Support.  There's not much else I can do.  I stated the case....I rest.

 

K....?

 

Do you want me to respond, or should I just leave it?

 

clb

[Enoch2021]

K....?

 

Do you want me to respond, or should I just leave it?

 

clb

 

 

 

Once you come to the Realization that Genesis is a Historical Narrative then go ahead and respond 

[a-seeker]

You said “It has been claimed on this site that Genesis 1 is "obviously" pure narrative.  By pure narrative I mean that the genre of the text excludes the following: allegory, poetic liturgy, myth etc”

 

The creationist position is that Genesis is written as historical narrative – meaning that every grammatical indication from the text itself suggests that the author intended the text to represent an historical rendering of events.

 

Symbolic language is normally accompanied by grammatical indicators which make the meaning obvious to the intended audience. No such indicators are intrinsic to the text of Genesis 1 itself (and there are several grammatical indicators pointing to historical narrative). To question Genesis as history, one therefore has to read extraneous information into the text.

 

Furthermore, all symbolism requires an antecedent – i.e. it has to be symbolic of something. There is no indication of any antecedent to Genesis 1. The historical rendering of Genesis itself is often used as the antecedent of other passages of scripture.

 

 

 

“Elsewhere I proposed that YEC is based not primarily on exegesis but on something akin to fear”

 

Logical fallacies render an argument to be technically irrational (because they don’t actually speak to the rational quality of an opposing argument). The logical fallacy you employ here is called an Appeal to Motives.

 

 

 

“YEC begins first with the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history; then proceeds to look for the “proofs” that it is so. But of course all exegesis or science performed after the conclusion is formed is nothing more than a charade; everything becomes evidence in favor of the verdict, for desperation can find almost anything almost anywhere”

 

There are two main issues I see here;

 

1. All argument and investigation (including scientific) incorporates presupposition. In hypothesis testing, the hypothesis itself incorporates an initial, presupposed claim of truth. But even before any hypothesis is attempted, all humans have allegiances to unverifiable claims regarding the ultimate nature of reality. Therefore all humans bring presupposition to the scientific process. Faith presuppositions (paradigms) necessarily limit what can be considered by the interpreter as truth. To suggest that this only applies to YECs is an exercise in Special Pleading (another logical fallacy).

 

2. The claim is also anachronistically wrong. The historical rendering of Genesis only became the subject of serious debate subsequent to the popularisation of secular models. Prior to that, the historical intent of Genesis was rarely questioned – because there was no indication from the text itself that any other interpretation was justified. It is only after externally-based criticisms of the historical viability of Genesis are raised, that creationist will argue the foundational importance of historical Genesis to other Biblical doctrines. That is – our position does NOT start with “the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history”, our position starts with the grammatical examination of Genesis. Then, in response to extraneous attacks on the historical nature of Genesis raised by other Christians, we will sometimes argue the fundamental importance of historical Genesis to Christian doctrine and philosophy. You have it the wrong way around.

 

 

 

“It is near impossible to imagine such a conglomeration of unformed matter hanging out in infinite space.  Do we still have a spherical object before us?  No, for the dome (the expanse) will not yet be created until day 2.  What is it then that keeps the waters from drifting off.  More so, how is it that the waters are not frozen at absolute 0? My immediate response to these questions is, “Perhaps we are not dealing with that kind of text.””

 

Such questions are logically valid (as are any creationist speculations regarding the laws of physics). However, we must be cautious not to force our own presupposition onto the text. Genesis 1 provides an overview of an explicitly supernatural creation event. It is not a Methods, Materials and Results section of a scientific paper being submitted for peer review. The text doesn’t give those ‘scientific’ details because that’s not its purpose. We are simply not told where the supernatural ends and the (newly created) laws of physics kick in. But that lack of specific detail does not itself logically justify relegating Genesis to the realm of the symbolic.

 

 

 

Day 1

 

The Bible does not describe the light as “source-less” – it merely doesn’t detail if there was any specific source beyond the creative power of God Himself. “Evening and morning” define allocations of time. The Creator of the universe has no necessary reliance upon “luminaries” to know how much time has passed.

 

 

 

Day 3

 

There is no indication in the text that God ‘grew’ anything at any “rate”. Like the rest of the universe, plant life came into existence through an act of creation.

 

“Can God do this?  Of course!  But why should I assume He has?”

 

You don’t have to assume anything. This is the straight forward claim of the text. A more telling question might be, ‘Why would you assume otherwise – why would you assume that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says?”

 

 

 

Day 4 “Luminaries set in the sky.  I confess I do not know what gravitational effects such a sudden appearance of enormous matter in our proximity would have on us”

 

One could reasonably assume that the Creator of the universe is in no way inhibited by the effects of laws which He Himself also created. Biblical claims are formulated within the context of a Supernatural Creator. You are judging supernatural claims by the standard of a naturalistic premise. Arguments are only ever rationally obligated to be consistent with the premise within which they are formulated.

 

It’s like telling an atheist they are wrong because ‘the Bible says so’ – the atheist premise has been disregarded; rendering the argument to be meaningless to the atheist. You are committing the same logical error by insisting a naturalistic explanation of an explicitly supernatural event.

 

“I am told by the scientists that the stars are billions of miles away and that even light must take its time in getting here.  This creates something of a problem; the stars are for signs and seasons”

 

My full response to the distant starlight problem can be found here;

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/175434-the-distant-starlight-problem/page-6#entry2062110

 

Of note is that the secular model also has a starlight/time problem (the horizon problem) – which they solve by invoking a hypothetical rapid expansion of light and space (millions of times faster than what YEC requires) to account for the observed dissemination of energy in the universe – called Inflation. Inflation has no plausible initial cause or reason for slowing down. It has no basis in direct observation whatsoever (i.e. it was not directly observed). It simply fits the math. So why aren’t you as sceptical of the cosmology model presented by “the scientists”?

 

 

“my question is (and has been) why do I need to invoke scientific speculation, unless I have come to the text determined that it is pure narrative?”

 

But the nature of the text not predetermined. That’s the point. No sincere believer considers themselves to have the right to merely assign Biblical texts as symbolic or historical. Any such claim has to be justified by the grammatical context of the passage itself – i.e. absent of any presupposition which is extraneous to the Bible itself.

I Tristan,

 

I have not met you and so I do not know if you are up to speed on the history of this debate--it has been carried out over numerous threads.

 

There is no way I can catch you up at the moment.  But much of your response is covered ground.  I do not mean to dismiss your comments (you clearly are intelligent).

 

clb

[EnochBethany]

 

I am not sure we are on the same page here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The point of this thread was very specific and I think most people have missed it--it was not really to disprove 6/day.  It was to establish a case for other options.  The only grounds that I can see for rejecting that case is fear."

 

IMHO:

 

Well, these are the interps which I believe are held by Biblicists who allow for an old universe:

 

1) Creation occurred bef Gen 1:1 -- Gen 1 is the story of the construction of the earth for man's use.

2) Gap between 1:1 & 1:2 (not necessary to postulate pre-Adamic race, angels on earth, etc.).

3) The Day/Age Theory.

 

Believing the Bible is God's Word does not imply that everything is literal.  "I am the door."  (no knob & hinges!).  There are parables in the Bible.  If a man takes Gen 1 non-literal, that really does not cause him to vaporize Biblical history in general or find myths in the Bible.  But to keep from making the Bible an arbitrary rubber nose, generally speaking, if the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense -- not to rule out types.

 

On the Day/Age Theory, as I recall some strong Biblicists, Gleason Archer & Merrill Unger, hold that POV.  It doesn't appeal to me, & I think there are symbiotic relationships that make it unlikely.  Finding regular days seems more likely to me.  I don't know of any real proof as to an old universe.  The creation of Adam is evidently relatively recent.  I think you can add up the genealogical numbers, though some want to postulate gaps there -- good Christian Biblicists.

 

I studied ancient history in a university grad school & was impressed at how little really was know when your go back to ancient times.  I think there is very little that has 2 dependable contemporary witnesses testifying to what happened.  And often historians who know the least, know the most.

 

But it is good that there are apologists who show the there are reasonable models to explain historical and cosmological data consistent with the Word of God.