I must say I am also surprised by your responses. When I said I was AFRAID of being dinked, I did not think I was already, but it seems communication is breaking down.

FWIIW, I agree that the man knew more than the woman in the Gen 2 story and that this is crucial to understanding the story and opposing non-egal interpretation.

The term prehistory is commonly used for Gen 1-11. It simply means events before things were written down in a history, it is not pejorative.

On the sign of Jonah, the accounts differ. The Pharisees in Mark (apparently) have not heard about the sign of Jonah, while those in Matt have. For me the solution is that Mark truncated. But this makes treating the Bible like Euclid precarious, but I think that it should NOT be treated in that way.

The words are not that fuzzy. It is a question of what methods of interpretation are appropriate. How much is “phenomenologically” real and how much is “really” real in the Bible is a disputable area, esp in the pre-history. This is part of the puzzle of integrating Gen 1 with Gen 2. People can differ on this.

That is, Gen 1-11 (pre-history) might be written “as to appearances” in some ways. This might also happen elsewhere in the Bible, but might be more prevalent in the pre-history. This is what is fuzzy for me and do not want to be dinked for it.

The basic idea is that the Bible uses phenomenological language quite a bit. It describes things by appearance and not necessarily “real” reality. This turns out to be a good thing as views on reality change, while appearance is pretty consistent. And believers can differ on what is phenomenlogically “real” and what is really “real” in the Bible. Just a few centuries ago, Galileo was persecuted based on the interpretation of a few verses. Now most of us see those verses as “not really real” but they did back when.

The questions that I asked that were not answered were:
1. The 5 pericopes at the start of Genesis.
2. The offer to exchange reading, if someone reads Paradigms on Pilgrimage (which I admire highly), I offered to read a similar book with a different viewpoint.

It is to the EVIL generation that the sign of Jonah will be given, according to Luke.

Things are fuzzy as I cannot integrate (or at least have no integrated) all my beliefs in this area. In the Gen pre-history, I believe it describes a local flood. The tower of Babel was a probably Babelonian ziggurat.

Chap 8 of Paradigms on Pilgrimage is “Was Adam Created Before of After the Animals?”.

Mar 8:10 And immediately he got into the boat with his disciples and went to the district of Dalmanutha.
Mar 8:11 The Pharisees came and began to argue with him, seeking from him a sign from heaven to test him.
Mar 8:12 And he sighed deeply in his spirit and said, “Why does this generation seek a sign? Truly, I say to you, no sign will be given to this generation.”
Mar 8:13 And he left them, got into the boat again, and went to the other side.

The disciples were with Jesus when he said no sign would be given to this generation. This generation includes his disciples.

Luk 11:29 When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, “This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.

On Adam, yes, humans were formed by God. I am fuzzy on details, perhaps it is as you say, perhaps not, this is something that I have on the shelf as I see thru a glass darkly on this. Gen 2 says that animals were formed after the human. I hope I am not put down for sharing what I believe.

I attacked no one for asking questions. My questions remain unanswered, I at least attempted to answer yours, altho you might not agree with my answers or even think they are answers. It is because my questions remain unanswered (even in an attempt) that I feel disrespected as this indicates to me you see this as a non-peer relationship.

The gospels were each written from different perspectives to different Christian communities from 30 to 60 years after the events they describe, they are not like newspaper articles recording events as they happened. The intended initial audience is also different for each, which can help explain some differences in presentation. Sometimes truncation occurs, which can be a curve ball if you are a Greek thinker like most of us. For example, Jesus on no sign except the sign of Jonah and Jesus on divorce contain truncations in some gospels. But if you do not know about the possibility of truncation then it is a (seeming) contradiction for Jesus to say “No sign” in one gospel and “No sign except Jonah” in another. (Mat 12, 16; Mark 8; Luk 11).

Paula,

Your question ASSUMES your schema, yet when I try to back up to see where we differ on interpretation methods, you decline to respond to my BASIC questions. That is YOUR choice, not mine. You decline to say whether you will read a book I recommend. I even ask for a recommendation from you, yet you decline to give such. All your choices.

Clarification: By book suggestion, I mean the name of a book by a former OE who became YE. Paula said that such people exist but did not give a book. I gave a book for the opposite and recommended it.

I do not think I have said that the creation week is allegory, I have called it a creation hymn (as have others) and I have said it can be called poetic narrative and/or narrative with poetic elements and that people can disagree over what is narrative and what is poetry, some seeing more narrative and some seeing more poetry. From everything we have discussed, I see it as having more poetry than you.

Some aspects I have shared are:
1) bara/create can take lots of time elsewhere in the Bible, so it is POSSIBLE to take time here also, FOR ME.
2) The structure of the week, the first 3 days being anti-tohu (formless) and the latter 3 anti-bohu (void). This indicates a literary structure TO ME.
3) The “morning, evening, day 1” does not indicate a 24 hour day, nor a 12 hour daytime to me, TO ME.

Others are:
4) The 7th day does not have the same ending. In fact, all of the days have differences in literary structure.
5) The order of doing things is different in Gen 1 and Gen 2, also the problems are different.
6) Sun on day 4, but earth rotation in relation to a sun defines a day, in MY understanding.

And there are others. Again, Jews themselves call them 6 creation days and leave it at that, letting the days be special and allowing various understandings. Now it is not the case that YE people do not have what they see as solutions to these concerns, it is that the YE arguments fail to convince me, so in faith I am OE. There are also science aspects as truth is one, but I decline to get into that, at least here.

I also feel I am being asked questions from a schema I do not believe in, yet when I try to go to basics I get no response, just more questions. And I have offered to read a book by a former OE who became YE, yet I have suggested a book on the opposite yet have received no response from Paula or Cheryl on reading P on P or even a book suggestion for me.

I DO give at least partial reasons for my OE belief, that these reasons do not fit into a schema that you use that results in your belief of YE is NOT my problem, the problem is that your schema is so confining you do not see where to hang my beliefs, the solution is that I do not hang my beliefs on the schema you use, but my guess is you are so close to your schema you do not see it as such, as it apparently seems so “obvious” to you. This is VERY SIMILAR to what the non-egals do with egals in trying to dismiss them, they use a schema that assumes male preference over the entire Bible and this is so “obvious” to them that they at first think egals are simply bogus, then they end up not understanding them unless they change.

The YE/OE area is a big one with scads of books by proponents of each. It is simply not possible on a forum like this to try to repeat what is already in books. But I can try to give indications of why I believe as I do. I believe a Berean should study both sides in this area and come to their own conclusions, while not dismissing others who see things differently. I gave a book “Paradigms on Pilgrimage” that is written by 2 former YE people. I recommend it, as it covers a lot of the Scriptural AND scientific reasons for OE. Paula replied that there were those who flipped from OE to YE, yet gave no book. I would read one if it existed, will you YE people read P on P? One of the authors is also a guy who was a main actor in the recent “The Books of the Bible” version of the TNIV so he is no slouch as a scholar.

The very way Cheryl asks her questions assumes her schema, which is why I find it hard to give her an answer that she wants, as I do not assume her schema. I give an answer as best I can, but it seems insufficient to her. So I back up to basics as I understand it (pericopes), but find even the basics are not agreed upon, or at least not responded to; instead I get more questions.

I do not believe the Bible contradicts itself either, but it can SEEM to do so and these are puzzles to solve, not ignore or deny. It means we need to dig deeper as it is likely we are missing something.

FWIIW, I think the allegorical method of interpretation is one that has been greatly misused, used where it should not be. So I hesitate to say I use allegory, but it is true I do interpret some prehistory verses differently than YE people.

1 The 2nd origins narrative says that animals were formed after the human.

2 The way I study the Bible is by pericopes, not doing this leads to the potential for mixing verses from different pericopes into a mishmash. This is done a lot, but it not a good practice. It is not that a mishmash is always the result, sometimes it is not, but one needs to be careful and I think the best way to be careful is to deal with each pericope separately. I am not cutting up anything by letting each pericope be its own story on its own terms; God could have inspired a seamless single narrative creation/origins story but did not do so.

P.S. The 4 gospels DO have seemingly contradictory things in them, as I am sure you know, even tho we know they are describing the same person, Jesus. Atheists love to point these out. My point is when we find seemingly contradictory things in text, there are various ways to address this; and we might find that we differ on how we do this.

I think part of the problem in understanding what I am saying is that you have a way of putting together these verses that I do not use, so when I give an aspect of what I believe, you do not know where to fit it in your schema, but I am not using your schema. I do not think you are a dim wit, quite the contrary.

I will back up and be more basic.

Here are the pericope starts, see if you agree, you do not need to agree with my titles, just the start of each pericope. If you disagree, tell me where.
Gen 1 – Creation hymn
Gen 2:4 – 2 problems, 2 solutions
Gen 3 – Sins and consequences
Gen 4 – Murder and consequences
Gen 5 – Human descent

I claim the 3 origins stories start with Gen 1, Gen 2:4 and Gen 5. Do you agree with this?

Do you see that one of the problems being address in the first origins story is too much water and in the 2nd is not enough water?

On #1, I did not answer yes and no, I said in in the 2nd origins story (Gen 2) the animals were formed after the human was formed. I pointed out that the ESV made a “highly interpretive” choice in presenting how they reconciled Gen 1 and Gen 2 in their translation; I mentioned it as they claim to be a “word for word” translation (which implies to them very little interpretation in their choices), but this is at least a partially false claim here and elsewhere.

On #2, it would be helpful to indicate that at least you understand why I cannot see the creation days as 24 hours, even if you disagree. Yom/day has a range of meanings, I picked one of the allowed meanings, which happens to be different from yours. I have already agreed that your selection is allowed by the faithful, it would be helpful if you agreed mine was also.

2. As far as I know, evening to evening is not mentioned in Scripture. I get that this delimis a 24 hour day from the Hebrew culture, which I maintain is an assumed substrate to understand the Bible (and I think you agree). That is, all authors except perhaps Luke were Hebrews and so one needs to know the basic Hebrew mindset to make the most sense of the Bible. Recall that in the limit the Bible is just marks on paper, any meaning is provided by the culture where those marks have a meaning.

3. I want to be careful on terminology, in the 2nd origins story, animals are FORMED after the human is formed. The ESV adds a “had” so this is how they reconcile Gen 1 with Gen 2, so they claim that the animals were NOT formed after man was formed.

I can accept the Hebrew concept of a day beginning at evening, this was what I was referring to when I said evening to evening implies a 24 hour day, as it is a normal Hebrew day. But FOR ME, I cannot in faith make that inference for the words in Gen 1, “becoming evening, becoming morning, day one”. I cannot claim you are NOT acting in faith thinking it means a 24 hour day, my only request is that I wish to be considered similarly, that since, in faith I am not able to see it as a 24 hour day, my belief in OE not be dinked as somehow “less than” belief in YE. That is, for me, the description is not a 24 hour day or a 12 hour day (daytime) for that matter, so it must be a metaphor for a longer time for me. And this is just one tiny reason I am OE.

Since you asked I cover some of your YEC posts on this thread.

Post 28 – fine

Post 43 – fine but unclear to me

Post 64 – last paragraph is a concern, note I comment on your claim that evening/morning/day means a 24 hour day in post 93.

Post 68 – somewhat clarified post 64 to reduce concern but then post 64 becomes unclear to me.

Post 81 – I was not making a cheap shot at Cheryl, I was trying to help her in expanding her argument’s reach to include old earthers, if she does not want to pursue that angle, that is up to her and fine with me. I am far from promoting OE in this forum, as it is too tiny to do much. This is a study topic, not one given to a few posts. What I was TRYING to promote is recognition that both YE and OE are held by faithful people, that is, neither can prove they are correct to the other, it is a disputable issue.

Post 92 – You misunderstood my point in post 91, which I then tried to clarify in post 93. You also claimed I would not accept some “decent stopping point”, how does this not say I am going beyond what is decent?

My post 93 – I state evening to evening would be a 24 hour day and morning to morning would also; but evening then morning marks the endpoints of nighttime. You had no comment.

I agree with most of your interpretation cautions and methods.

Jesus does not explain all the parables he teaches in the gospels, only some of them.

We differ on our interpretation in this area, just like others differ on their interpretation of end times. We see thru a glass darkly and some things are simply disputable, Paul discusses some of them.

I do not need to convince you I am correct for me to continue to hold my beliefs (nor you me); I can try to explain some aspects but I keep getting misunderstood. I did give 2 of the books I use to inform my beliefs. I assure you my beliefs in this area are not lightly held but after deep study.

Just as egals get dinked by comps for “not holding to Scripture” so do I feel dinked in this area by Cheryl and Paula but I find that such terminology does not advance the discussion between egals and comps and between young earthers and old earthers. The first thing is to ASSUME both are trying to be faithful and not express dinks.

After my comments on the last teaching, I am glad to say I agree with this one.

Cheryl,

There can be logic to poetry, but it does not need to be strict, it can be allusional. I see the less order/more order as allusion/metaphor inside each creation day, it does not need to cross days.

In Gen 1:4-5 God does not call night good, while daytime is called good.

I never even thought the creation days are a mishmash, I see the order as forming a structure as I mentioned. I see the order differently that you do, but that does not make mine a mishmash. Also, the 7th day is called holy, so there needed to be six before it for this to make sense.

I do not think God inspires nonsense, however we are to use our heads when something might appear to be nonsense at first to us.

I see each of the 3 origins stories at first as standalone by themselves. One can put 1 and 3 together fairly easily. But story 2 is a challenge to integrate with the others and faithful people can do it differently. But first one needs to read each pericope on its own.

Given that I do not see Gen 1 as requiring synchronization in universe time, there is no time problem to address in Gen 2. So yes, in Gen 2 the man knows more than the woman and bears more responsibility; not because he is a man, but because he knows more.

Cheryl,

If evening is seen as poetic metaphor, it does not need to indicate time, I gave an example of evening meaning “less order” in contrast to morning meaning more order. That is, each creation day results in a further fulfillment of the ordering of reality according to God’s plan and use of the terms evening and morning is confirming that (to me).

Yes, God created time, and space, or in Einstein’s language, spacetime.

FWIIW, I do not use time synchronicity in my understanding of Gen 1. Part of the reason is that God can create over time, that is, the “creation days” can be times of proclamation of God’s activity that will take place over universe time in any order God wishes. For example, the first 3 days are anti-tohu (form) and the latter 3 are anti-bohu (void). I see this as a literary device that forms an ordered structure of forming the places for the occupants. But it does not need to mean that plants were physically created before the sun, for example. That is, science can investigate and perhaps discover that the sun was created before plants and that poses no problem.

Paula,

In those non-Gen verses the term “day” might refer to a solar day, but the 2 terms evening and morning mark either daytime or night-time depending on the order of use. This is part of the reason why I do not see the usage in Gen 1 as literal, due to the use of these terms. Evening to evening would be one solar day, as would morning to morning. Anyone else is free to differ, but I give my reasons for believing as I do in a disputable area.

Here are verses in the ESV that have all of “day, evening, morning” in them.

(Gen 1:5) God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

(Gen 1:8) And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

(Gen 1:13) And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

(Gen 1:19) And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

(Gen 1:23) And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

(Gen 1:31) And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

(Exo 18:13) The next day Moses sat to judge the people, and the people stood around Moses from morning till evening.

(Lev 6:20) “This is the offering that Aaron and his sons shall offer to the LORD on the day when he is anointed: a tenth of an ephah of fine flour as a regular grain offering, half of it in the morning and half in the evening.

(Num 9:15) On the day that the tabernacle was set up, the cloud covered the tabernacle, the tent of the testimony. And at evening it was over the tabernacle like the appearance of fire until morning.

(Num 9:21) And sometimes the cloud remained from evening until morning. And when the cloud lifted in the morning, they set out, or if it continued for a day and a night, when the cloud lifted they set out.

(Deu 16:4) No leaven shall be seen with you in all your territory for seven days, nor shall any of the flesh that you sacrifice on the evening of the first day remain all night until morning.

(Jdg 19:9) And when the man and his concubine and his servant rose up to depart, his father-in-law, the girl’s father, said to him, “Behold, now the day has waned toward evening. Please, spend the night. Behold, the day draws to its close. Lodge here and let your heart be merry, and tomorrow you shall arise early in the morning for your journey, and go home.”

(Act 28:23) When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in greater numbers. From morning till evening he expounded to them, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the Law of Moses and from the Prophets.

It seems to me that the non-Gen 1 uses do not indicate a 24 hour day.

If someone said to me, “it was evening, it was morning, the second day” it would not at all be clear to me that a 24 hour day was indicated, rather I would suspect a poetic metaphor was being used, as pointed out evening to evening or morning to morning would be a better indication of a 24 hour day. And a natural metaphor (for me) is evening is the onset of darkness/night, which is associated with less order and morning is the onset of light/daytime, which is associated with more order. And God is increasing the order in Creation in each day, so this metaphor makes sense in context.

What I have been trying to do is propose that both young earth and old earth people can be faithful to the text, but obviously interpret it differently. It is not really useful to make claims like the other “ignores” the text, fails to “take God at his word”, etc. This does not mean that oneself cannot have a preferred interpretation, one can; but one should leave enough room for the other, IMO.

In any case, I made an attempt at a helpful comment by pointing out that any argument that assumes young earth will not be followed by old earthers like me. CBE faces similar things in trying to get their message out. It is Cheryl’s choice on how to present her arguments and she is free to ignore my point.

FWIIW, the words “evening and morning, day n” do not clearly indicate a solar day TO ME in these examples from Gen 1. For 1, evening and morning are the end points of what we call night, not daytime or a 24 hour day. For 2, evening and morning are terms that can be used in metaphors. There are GOOD reasons that Jews decline to insist that the creation days MUST be seen as the same as solar days.

I am an old earther for many reasons and short discussions here are not going to sway me. I would hope that others who believe that there is only one way to view origins texts on this would study views contrary to their own and see why they make sense to others, if not themselves.

In any case, I made a attempt at a helpfu

Gen 1 declares, as one example, that the sun is NOT a god, rather it was created. Same with the moon. This was contra some other ideas floating around the fertile crescent at the time.

There are many things that can be seen today as immoral in Torah, but at the time Torah was written they were a step into the Kingdom put in language that the original readers would understand. Atheists use the immoral Bible argument all the time, but that is because they view it out of its cultural context. Similarly, there are many things that can be seen as scientifically simplistic in Torah, but at the time Torah was written they were a step into the Kingdom put in language that the original readers would understand. Neither of these say the Torah is untrue, just that it was written in a specific culture and advanced that culture into the Kingdom as people read it, believed it, and followed it. Taking any text (let alone Bible verses) as some kind of stand alone truth outside of the culture they were written in risks misunderstanding them greatly, making them into something they were never intended to be.