Young Earth or Old Earth? Here is where to post your thoughts!

Christians in the Public Square: How Far Should Evangelicals Go in the Creation-Evolution Debate?Technical - Aug 30, 2009 - by Todd Beall PhD

The debate between creation and evolution has gone on now for nearly 150 years. The cover story of the current issue of Time Magazine (Nov 13, 2006) is “God vs. Science,” in which there is a debate between the atheist biologist Richard Dawkins and the Christian geneticist Francis Collins, is just the latest indication that this topic is ever in the public square, and not likely to go away any time soon. When the Time magazine editor mentioned that some conservative Protestants took a literal view of Genesis 1 and 2, Collins responded that this is “a very narrow perspective that will put our faith at risk of looking ridiculous.” Dawkins suggested that Collins would “save himself an awful lot of trouble if he just simply ceased to give [his fundamentalist colleagues] the time of day. Why bother with these clowns?” So it is sad, but true, that if one attempts to view Gen 1 and 2 as literally true, a mainstream news magazine such as Time has no problem with one of their experts calling those who hold such a position “clowns”! Unfortunately, millions read these words, and are swayed by them.

So it is not news that the mainstream press thinks that those who take a literal position on Gen 1 and 2 are foolish; nor is it news that critical scholars, represented by Francis Collins and many others, also regard that position in the same light. What is amazing to me is that in the last 30 years, increasing numbers of evangelical scholars have also abandoned a literal understanding of the early chapters of Genesis.

The reason for abandoning a literal understanding of Gen 1 and 2 is not new. Christians who are convinced that evolution is, to a large degree, correct, have needed to try to harmonize what they view as “science” with their understanding of the Bible. For those who do not hold to an inerrant Scripture, this is not a big problem, since it is easy to say that the biblical accounts are not correct in such matters. But for those of us who call ourselves evangelicals, who hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, reconciling the teachings of modern “science” with Gen 1 and 2 is not so easy. How can one uphold the inerrancy of Scripture and still hold to evolution?

There were two older attempts to reconcile Genesis with evolution: the gap theory and the day-age theory. These have been joined in recent years by a third interpretation, the framework hypothesis. While we will look briefly at all 3 views, the major emphasis in this paper will be on discussing the merits of the framework hypothesis.

The Gap Theory: Full of Holes?

The gap theory, popularized by the Scofield Bible in 1909, held that there were two creations.1 Gen 1:1 describes the first creation, after which Satan, the earth's ruler (over pre-Adamic “men”), rebelled. Because of Satan's fall, sin entered the universe and brought God's judgment upon the earth in the form of a flood (indicated by the water of 1:2) and then a global ice age. The plant, animal, and human fossils on earth today date from this flood, and are genetically unrelated to plants, animals, and humans on earth today. Gen 1:2 thus describes the ruined condition of the earth, and Gen 1:3-31 describes God's re-creation.

Support for the gap theory is seen in translating ht'y>h' in Gen 1:2 as had become. Furthermore, Whbow" WhTo (without form and void) is said to represent an evil, sinful condition, and thus not an original state of the earth (Isa 45:18 is said to support this understanding). Finally, it is claimed that a distinction must be made between hf'[ (make) and ar"B (create).

But there are major problems with the gap theory. First, the translation of 1:2 is strained, since was is the normal meaning of ht'y>h, not had become. Second, Whbow" WhTo simply means unformed and unfilled; it is often used in contexts of judgment (such as Isa 45:18), because the land is then swept clean and uninhabited. But the words themselves do not carry this connotation.2 Third, the words hf'[' and ar"B' are used interchangeably with respect to creation (for instance, hf'[' is used in Neh 9:6; Job 9:9; Prov 8:22, 23, 26; both words are used in Gen 1:21, 25-27; 2:2-4). Fourth, there are theological problems with the gap theory. Was there death before sin entered the world?

Were there men without souls prior to Adam? Fifth, the gap theory contains a great deal of speculation. There is not one word about Satan's “reign” and fall on earth, and no mention of any pre-Adamic cataclysm (in the Bible, or in geology which presupposes uniformitarianism–if one is going to accept evidence for a cataclysm, why not simply accept the flood?). And finally, the Hebrew of Gen 1:1-2 seems to preclude the gap theory, since the waw consecutive form should have been used if the gap theory were correct; instead, the verb is a simple perfect. Yet, in every other verse in Gen 1, the waw consecutive is used. The waw consecutive implies consecutive action–first, God created the heavens and the earth, and then the earth became formless and void. However, the construction used indicates a break in the action–“and at that time the earth was formless and void.” It describes the setting at the time the earth was created by God.3

The Day-Age Theory: Bad Science and Bad Exegesis?

For the above reasons, the gap theory is not popular among evangelical scholars today.4 The second theory, the day-age theory, is somewhat more popular.5 This theory states that the creation “day” is not 24 hours, but instead may be thousands (or millions) of years. So the six days of creation are “six sequential, long periods of time.” 6 Some attempt to support the theory by 2 Pet 3:8 (“One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”). Archer opts for the day-age theory, because he cannot imagine Adam naming all the animals and Eve being created in only one 24-hour day. He states, “Who can imagine that all of these transactions could possibly have taken place in 120 minutes of the sixth day?”7

But there are problems with the day-age view, both from an evolutionary and a biblical standpoint. First, the day-age theory contradicts the evolutionary model, and thus does not really solve the problem of harmonizing the Bible with “science.” The order of events according to the day-age theory and evolution is radically different. According to the Bible, plants were created the 3rd day, marine animals on the 5th. The sun, moon, and stars were created the 4th day, after the plants (what about photosynthesis?). The birds were created with fish on the 5th day, but evolution says that the birds evolved from the fish after the reptiles (created on the 6th day). Insects were created on the 6th day, after plants (but insects were needed for pollination; also, the simple [insects] should not follow the other complex animals in the evolutionary model).8 Furthermore, according to Gen 2:7 man's creation was from the dust of the ground; the evolution model claims that man came from apes.

So, if the day-age theory does not solve the problem with “science,” why is it needed? Moreover, the day-age theory also fails on biblical grounds. First, ~Ay (day) in Gen 1 does not mean an indefinite period of time. It does have this meaning 65 times (as in Gen 2:4), but over 2200 times it means a 24-hour day. And it never means an indefinite period when a limiting number is attached to it (first, second, third, etc.). In addition, the phrase evening and morning (as used in Gen 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, and 31) surely seems to imply a normal 24-hour day. Finally, Exod 20:8-11 provides proof for a literal 6 days: “Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God.... For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.” The word ~Ay can not be used literally in one part and then symbolically in the next verse!

This is why I am personally surprised that there are still some advocates of the day-age theory today. When analyzed carefully, it does not answer the problem with evolution, so it fails on those grounds; and it is contrary to the normal understanding of Gen 1 in terms of the use of “day,” so it fails on biblical grounds.

Six 24 Hours Days, But...

What is fascinating is that even many of those who do not believe that God created the world in six 24-hour days argue that the meaning the author intended in Gen 1 is six 24-hour days. For example, the critical scholar John Skinner asserts that “the interpretation of ~Ay as aeon, a favourite resource of harmonists of science and revelation, is opposed to the plain sense of the passage, and has no warrant in Heb. usage (not even Ps. 90:4).... If the writer had had aeons in his mind, he would hardly have missed the opportunity of stating how many millenniums each embraced.”9 Similarly, Mark Ross notes that “the steady march of days–day one, day two, day three, etc.–strongly suggests a sequential, chronological account.”10 Victor Hamilton likewise states that “it needs to be affirmed that in the Hebrew Bible the normal understanding of yom is a day of the week.” Even though there are places where it can mean a long period of time, Hamilton says that “the burden of proof...is on those who do not attribute to yom in Gen. 1 its normal and most common interpretation, especially when yom is always described as being composed of an evening and a morning....Whoever wrote Gen. 1 believed he was talking about literal days.”11 In addition, Gordon Wenham notes that “there can be little doubt that here ‘day’ has its basic sense of a 24-hour period. The mention of morning and evening, the enumeration of the days, and the divine rest on the seventh show that a week of divine activity is being described here.” Though he notes that “day” may also mean “when,” and Ps 90:4 says that a thousand years are similar to a day in God’s sight, Wenham concludes: “it is perilous to try to correlate scientific theory and biblical revelation by appeal to such texts.”12 Finally, Allen Ross states that in Gen 1, ~Ay “must carry its normal meaning....It seems inescapable that Genesis presents the creation in six days.”13

With this conclusion we wholeheartedly concur.

Since the meaning of Gen 1 appears to be that God created the world in six 24-hour days, it is surprising that many evangelicals either seem to be abandoning this view or becoming agnostic about the whole subject. Bill Arnold is typical of the latter approach. In his text, Encountering the Book of Genesis (aimed at undergraduates in Christian colleges, according to the book’s preface), he says that we can’t really be sure what the Hebrew word ~Ay means; then he points out that it is hard to square the 24-hour view with current geological evidence. He concludes that “we should not be too concerned with the issue...This is not a faith issue. If it were important to know how long it took God to create the world, the Bible would have made it clear.”14 To which I would like to respond, “He did! How much clearer could he have made it?”

Sadly, Arnold is hardly alone. G. C. Aalders says that “we are not talking about days in relationship to human beings because they had not yet been created. We are speaking rather about a day of God....It will always remain an idle effort to measure the length of the creation days.”15 Yet, is not God the author of Scripture, writing to human beings who presumably would know what is meant by a “day”? Why is it an “idle effort” simply to understand that by evening and morning we are dealing with a normal, 24-hour day?

John Walton’s discussion is verbose and confusing. He finally states:

If we press the question, did God really carry out the events of Genesis 1 in seven twenty-four hour days, the answer is certainly, yes. What we do not know is whether that literal seven days incorporated a ceremonial setting, focused on a declarative sequence, or something else again. If the interpretation offered in this commentary is correct in highlighting function over structure, the text may not suggest that all things were made in this seven-day period. God’s creation of matter may not be confined to the seven days, nor is it the principle [sic] subject of Genesis 1.16

This confusing conclusion is in the popular NIV Application Commentary series, not in a more technical commentary. One is left to ponder, if God’s creation of matter is not the principal subject of Gen 1, what is?17

Victor Hamilton, cited above in his statement that ~Ay means a 24-hour period (“whoever wrote Gen. 1 believed he was talking about literal days”), then states the following: “Now, over the last few centuries science has shown that it is absurd and preposterous to think that the universe was created in one week.”18 Similarly, Wenham, who also clearly holds that ~Ay means a 24-hour period, then concludes that the six days are merely a “device which our narrator uses to express the coherence and purposiveness of the creator’s work,” and that the days should not be interpreted “over-literalistically.”19 Likewise Robert Godfrey argues that “the days of Genesis 1 are ordinary, twenty-four-hour days,” but then concludes that “these ordinary days are for us as a model for our working, not as a time schedule that God followed.”20

Derek Kidner seems to take the days as literal in some sense, such that even the human author understood as literal; but then he concludes that it is “phenomenological language” and “heavy temporal foreshortening which turns ages into days.” He concludes condescendingly, “it is only pedantry that would quarrel with terms that simplify in order to clarify.”21 In a similar manner, Bruce Waltke asserts that the author of Genesis “is not concerned with presenting a strict historical account,” but instead gives truth about origins “in anthropomorphic language.” He concludes that “the narrator has an agenda very different from the modern historian. He has a theological agenda: to tell us that God created the earth and that it is all very orderly.”22

So, according to these evangelical scholars, all we are left with from the Genesis account is that God did things purposefully and in order. Is that all that Gen 1 teaches?

Six 24-Hour Days–An Embarrassing View?

One is left to wonder why so many evangelicals have abandoned the six 24-hour day view or become agnostic on the whole matter. I would suggest that there are two primary reasons. Neither of these reasons has anything to do with the exegesis of Gen 1, since the simplest, most direct reading of the text indicates that God created the world in six 24-hour days, as many of these same evangelical scholars acknowledge.23 The first reason is that many evangelicals are convinced of either evolutionary theory or (at the least) the geological evidence for the age of the earth. This understanding then guides their interpretation of Gen 1.24 I believe that they are wrong to give such great credence either to current evolutionary theory or geology, since both are based upon the unproved assumption of uniformitarianism: the idea that the processes we see at work now in the universe were always at work at the same rate in the same way. So, for example, according to uniformitarianism, we can determine the age of fossils by using Carbon-14, since the rate of decay has remained a constant throughout time. However, a catastrophic event such as the flood of Gen 6-8 (see also 2 Pet 3:3-6) renders the uniformitarian assumption invalid; in fact, uniformitarianism is in direct contradiction to any miraculous event. Still, the continual teaching of evolution in public schools and universities for decades has taken its toll, and sadly even some evangelicals are convinced by the “scientific” assumptions of uniformitarianism and evolution.25

I think there is a second reason why many evangelicals have either abandoned the six 24-hour day view or become agnostic. And that is, they are somewhat embarrassed by it. For years, evangelicals have been regarded by the mainstream (i.e., liberal) critical scholars as “out of touch,” with little scholarly work to their credit. Their view of the Bible, especially that it is inerrant, has been regarded as simple or naive. Evangelicals who have pursued doctorates in non-evangelical schools have found their reception disconcerting. They, too, want to be known as reputable scholars, not simply knee-jerk fundamentalists.26 And what could be more “fundamentalist” than insisting on a literal six 24-hour day creation for Gen 1? Such an opinion is regarded as anti-intellectual and anachronistic: in the words of Richard Dawkins, those who hold such a view are simply dismissed as “clowns”!

The Framework Hypothesis: A Less Embarrassing Alternative, But At What Cost?

All of this has led some evangelical scholars to seek alternatives to the literal six 24-hour day creation view. Some have offered quite innovative alternatives. For example, John Sailhamer believes that #r,a, in Gen 1:2 should be translated land, and that Gen 1:2-31 refers to the creation of the promised land, rather than the creation of the world.27 And Duane Garrett believes that the seven days of Gen 1 do not represent the actual length of creation, but instead are “the seven days of divine revelation to Moses.”28 While both of these views are novel, they also seem to necessitate reading in various assumptions into Gen 1 that are nowhere stated, nor even implied. Thus, it is not surprising that these views have not attracted a wide following, and they will not be discussed further here.

By contrast, the framework hypothesis has been embraced by numerous evangelical scholars.29 The framework hypothesis addresses one of the major weaknesses of the day-age theory: unlike the day-age theory, the advocates of the framework hypothesis believe that the six days of creation are presented as normal, 24-hour days. In other words, they take ~Ay with its normal meaning of a 24-hour day.30 Yet, this “picture” of God’s creative work in a week is not to be taken literally; instead, “it functions as a literary structure in which the creative works of God have been narrated in a topical order.” So the commands of God (“Let there be...”) “are narrated in a nonsequential order within the literary structure or framework of a seven-day week.”31 Thus, Gen 1 is intended to provide the literary framework for creation, but not a literal or sequential chronology. Appeal is sometimes made to other Ancient Near Eastern myths to demonstrate that this approach is not limited to Gen 1. Furthermore, it is stated that Gen 2:5 indicates that it had not rained on the earth, showing that ordinary divine providence operated in the same way during creation as it does now, thus requiring far more than 24 hours between each creative act.32

Often the following pattern is noted:

Creation kingdoms Creature kings

Day 1: light; day and night Day 4: light-bearers: sun, moon, stars

Day 2: sea and sky Day 5: sea creatures; birds

Day 3: land and vegetation Day 6: land creatures; man33

While the framework hypothesis may at first seem like a viable option, upon closer reflection, it has a host of insurmountable problems. First and foremost, Gen 1 is presented in a normal narrative, not poetic, form. It is presented in a sequential manner. In fact, it contains 50 waw consecutive imperfect forms (the standard marker for consecutive, sequential action34), more waw consecutive forms than all but 3 of the first 20 chapters of Genesis.35 There are an average of 1.61 waw consecutive imperfect forms in Gen 1. By contrast, in the poetic section in Gen 49:1b-27 (Jacob’s blessing of his sons), there are only a total of 8 waw consecutive forms, or 0.30 per verse.36 To put it another way, Gen 1 has 5 times more narrative sequential markers than a comparable poetic section. Is there any doubt that the author of Gen 1 intended that the narrative be understood as normal sequential action? The genre is clearly narrative, not poetry. As Pipa notes, “is there any way Moses could have more precisely indicated six, normal, sequential days?”37

In fact, it is fascinating that the day-age advocates insist (correctly) that Gen 1 speaks of the days in sequential action, while the framework hypothesis advocates insist (correctly) that the days of Gen 1 are literal 24-hour days. Only the literal 24-hour day view holds that the days are both sequential and literal 24-hour periods.

A second objection to the framework hypothesis is that the nice pattern outlined above breaks down at several points. Furthermore, even if the pattern held true completely, it would not be an argument for a non-literal approach to the chapter, especially since the chapter has so many sequential markers! Just because something is presented according to a pattern does not mean that the pattern should not be taken literally. As E. J. Young states, “why, then, must we conclude that, merely because of a schematic arrangement, Moses has disposed of chronology?”38 But the pattern itself does not hold. A few examples will suffice. First, the light of day 1 is not dependent on the sun, so the sun is hardly the “ruler” of it. The light of day 1 is a special creation of God, distinct from the sun. If some have a problem with understanding light without the sun, then they should recognize that something similar will be true in the eternal state. According to Rev 21:23 and 22:5, the sun will not be needed at all, since the Lord Himself is the Light. So just as in the first three days of the creation week, in the eternal state there will once again be light without the sun. Second, the waters existed on day 1, not just day 2. Third, in v. 14 the “lights” of day 4 are set in the “expanse” created in day 2 (not day 1). Fourth, the sea creatures of day 5 were to fill the “water in the seas” which were created on day 3, not day 2, contrary to the chart above (see Gen 1:10); and none of the sea creatures or birds or land creatures other than man were to “rule” anything anyway! Finally, man was created on day 6 not to rule over the land and vegetation (created on day 3), but over the land animals created on day 6 and the sea creatures and birds created on day 5! In other words, despite the nice chart, the patterns simply do not hold up!39

Third, the appeal of Kline and others that Gen 2:5 supports a non-literal understanding of Gen 1 requires a particular understanding of that passage (and relationship of that passage to Gen 1) that is not warranted. First, one should acknowledge that Gen 2:5-6 is not an easy passage to interpret: do these verses refer to the preparation only of the garden of Eden, or to the entire state of the earth? Only in the latter case would Kline’s interpretation possibly come into play. Second, even if Kline’s interpretation of Gen 2:5-6 is correct, it would not rule out extraordinary providence during the third day of creation: as Young states, at most it would show that “such a mode [general providence] may have been present.40 Furthermore, Gen 2 is not a second detailed chronological creation account; rather, its purpose is to provide further details concerning man and the garden that are necessary to understand the narrative of Gen 3.41

Fourth, if Gen 1 is not intended to provide details about creation but rather to demonstrate that God did it in an orderly way, then why are all the details provided? In other words, if the details are not the point of the chapter, then why did the author provide so many of them? In fact, there is no single marker or indication from the text that the days are simply a “form” or “framework,” or that the details of what things are created on what day, are unimportant. Further, how could Exod 20:11 use God’s six-day creative activity as a model for man’s activity, if God Himself had not actually worked for six literal days?42 Kline’s later attempt to introduce a two-level cosmology (an “upper invisible register,” to which the “days” of creation in Gen 1 apparently refer; and a “lower register,” which we actually see) only confuses matters further.43

Finally, there is a major hermeneutical issue with the framework hypothesis. Simply put, it is this: if we regard Gen 1 as not literal, but rather figurative language that in essence says that “God did it,” then when do we all of a sudden decide that the text of Genesis should be taken literally? Do we do that in chap. 3, where the serpent tempts Eve, or is that metaphorical as well? And if so, was there an actual historical fall? Or is that also a metaphor? What about the Flood? Or the Tower of Babel? Or Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph? In other words, since there is no internal marker to indicate that the text of Gen 1 should be taken figuratively, how do we decide when to stop? The NT clearly refers to creation in Gen 1 and 2, and regards the accounts as historically accurate (see Matt 19:19:4-6; Mark 10:6-8; Luke 3:38; Rom 5:12-20; Rom 8:19-22; 1 Cor 11:8-9; 15:22; 2 Cor 4:6; 1 Tim 2:13-14; 2 Pet 3:5; Heb 4:4; 11:3). The same is true for Gen 3, the flood accounts, and so forth.44 Why do we have license to do otherwise? As E. J. Young aptly states, “if the ‘framework’ hypothesis were applied to the narratives of the virgin birth or to the resurrection or Romans 5:12ff., it could as effectively serve to minimize the importance of the content of those passages as it now does the content of the first chapter of Genesis.”45

In other words, for those evangelicals who think that the framework hypothesis is a more satisfactory solution than the more “embarrassing” view that the days of Genesis 1 are meant to be taken literally and sequentially, I would ask, is it really worth it? Once one has decided to take the first chapter of Genesis as literary rather than literal, then where are the hermeneutical safeguards? Why should one insist on a literal fall or a literal flood? And if there is no literal first Adam who fell, then what is the need for the second Adam to redeem mankind from that fall (Rom 5:12-20; 1 Cor 15:22)? Are those who are adhering to the framework hypothesis really thinking about the hermeneutical ramifications of their choice?

Why not take the words of Gen 1 at face value, as simple, straightforward sequential narrative of God’s miraculous creative activity? If that causes some intellectuals to label us as “narrow-minded clowns,” then so be it. The claims of Christ are narrow (John 14:6: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father but by Me”); the gospel is narrow; and the cross is regarded as foolishness by the wisdom of this world (1 Cor 1:18-31). But it is true nonetheless. Heb 11:3 says that “by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Do we really think that contemporary science is more authoritative than God’s revelation? Sometimes our intellectual pride may get in the way of our faith: if the inerrant Scripture in Gen 1 states that God created the world in six literal days, then why should we not simply accept it, rather than try to find all kinds of ways to explain it away? Sometimes the plain, simplest, most natural reading of the text is, indeed the best. Such is the case with Gen 1, despite all the attempts to explain it in some other, more complicated way.

For references see;

url=http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/08/30/Christians-in-the-Public-Square-How-Far-Should-Evangelicals-Go-in-the-Creation-Evolution-Debate.aspx

Another way of explaining the absence of the word עידן (Idan)
in your "Strong's Hebrew Old Testament"... could be that
because the word עידן (Idan) was not used in the Bible ...
there would NOT be any reference to it !!!
This in no way implies that the word did not exist at the time!
It ONLY means that the word was not used!
Since neither of us are Hebrew Scholars ... we would need to reference
a credible Hebrew Dictionary that could give us some REAL evidence
to when new words have been added to the Hebrew Lexicon!
Even further ... to the detriment of your argument ...
it may be logically concluded that even if the word did not exist
at the time ... it was because the word had no REAL useful meaning
before it was added to the language!
If the YE view is correct ... then even the word "Yesterday" had
no REAL meaning until Day-2 !!!
Why would you have a word for "a long period of time" if there
was not yet any such thing in reality to necessitate it !!!
New words are added to languages when they become necessary!
(i.e. Computer or Hologram)
Old words & terms are removed when they become useless & obsolete!
(i.e. Darwinian Evolution) !!!
So .......
Let me challenge YOU to write a sentence in Hebrew that would
express that God meant 6-days and NOT epochs ...
better than He has already Divinely done for us all ???
(remembering to keep your sarcasm to a minimum)
What's good for the Goose ...

Bret*

I'm baaaaack. I've been finishing up Dr. Meyer's book 'Signature In The Cell'. I plan to make a separate post on that topic. 

 I tried to find the word 'Idan' in my Strong's Hebrew Old Testiment but had no success in finding it.  The word 'age' appears in English phrases numerous times but always translated from the Hebrew 'seybah' meaning always 'old age' in reference to the lifetime of a person. The word 'age' meaning an extended time period like epoch used in the proper context first appears in  New Testament in Mathew 13:22. 

In the old testament, the terms 'old age' (seybah) occurs several places but always in reference to a person's lifetime. The term 'epoch' does not occur in the Bible since there doesn't seem to be a separate word for it during the time period when the Old Testament was written. Yôm is the closest word the Hebrew's had to the English word 'epoch'. Here is what Strong's Hebrew Dictionary had to say about it:
  
 0165 age (ehiy)- apparently an orthographical variation for 346; where: I will be (Hos. 13:10,14 [which is often the rendering of the same Hebrew form from 1961]

346 ayeh- prolonged from 335; where?: --where. 
1961 hayah- a primitive root [compare to 1933]: to exist, i. e. be or become, come to pass {always empathetic, and not a mere copula or auxilary}:-beacon, X altogether, be(come), accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, X have, last, pertain, quit, (one-)self, require, X use.   
In the American Standard Bible the word 'age' meaning a fixed but long time period doesn't appear until Hebrews 6:5 which refers to the powers of the age to come and refers to age in this way only once in the entire Bible. 
In the KJV, the word 'age' does not occur in this usage of a long time period.  Evidently your usage of 'age' or 'epoch' began after the Bible was written.  so 'Idan' is a relatively new word with an English meaning of age or epoch, check it out.

Brother Lee   

Hola ... (ALL 3 of You?)

With less than 5 active Posters ...
I believe multiple Strings is unnecessary !!?
Lee would (most likely) just avoid the Earth(Age) questions
if they were on a separate String !!?
We can easily discuss BOTH topics at the same time ...
(as I am chewing some gum right now)
with so few people actually posting!
*******
As for a Hebrew word for "Epoch" ...
There is עידן (Idan) ... !!! (look it up!)
Also ...
Terms like "Ancient" & "Age Old" are relative!
Thousands of years ago IS ancient & old !!!
Since "Time" has only existed since the Creation ...
it depends on when that actually was ... before
we can attempt to assign any kind of numeric value
to these kind of relative terms!

Bret* 2010

Ta for the info Lee.
Yeah, a few weeks ago I started a new thread by accident, so it is possible to do so on this forum.
I think like you (hey, we agree on something!) that a new thread would kind of make sense.

L

Lucien,

We originally started this blog to address Darwinism and Creationism as well as other Creation theories. The group wanted to address the age question first, so that was the name for the blog site. We ran out of things to address around September after several months of dialogue regarding the age question and started to discuss Darwinism vs other theories shortly before you joined us. I asked for a new thread related to biological origination and evolution theories but my request was ignored. Others just wanted to continue using the same thread. So here we are, in he first month after the year of Darwin's Big Celebration yearning for discussion on origination of all the species in a way that is compatible with Christianity and that makes sense with what we know about the universe and it's laws of nature. I hope you will want to join in.

Brother Lee

Hi Lee.

Ancient is in the eye of the beholder.
Some ruins in Scotland look ancient, but yet are mere hundreds of years old.
I might say that you look ancient in your picture, but that would be rude so I will refrain from it! LOL

I won't better God in His communications, since I think He did a great job.
Don't have my Hebrew lexicon with me, so won't be able to answer to your challenge just now.

And Darwin.
Well, the guy is dead, but the Word is very much alive.

And I thought this forum was about the age of the earth?
We all know that Darwin went too far in his views, so why bother discussing it?
Or start another mail thread if you wish to discuss his ideas...
(I know I am not the boss of this forum, so don't listen to me too much)

Geeesh, Brothers, don't you want to discuss Darwinism occassionally? I'd love to hear your objections to it's tenets.  If not, how about how atheists use Darwinism to further their agenda?

This will be my last reponse hopefully to how long a day is. I really don't think that speculating about what our ancient forebearers thought about the age of the earth has any value or helps to bring closure to this topic. So I will not offer a guess. I do know what Peter thought since he told me in verse 3:8, for the others it's pure conjecture.

Moses on Deuteronomy 33:15 mentions the 'ancient mountains' and 'age old hills' whatever is meant by that but it's hard to imagine that 2000 years would meet his ancient or age old criteria. Habakkuk also refers to ancient mountains for good measure so to me, it appears that these individuals might be implying that they thought they were living on a very old earth.

The second part of your last post indicates to me that you believe that God spoke to these early writers of the Bible in English instead of Hebrew. I know you are aware of that He didn't so why do you ask a non-sensical question like this. Please tell me the other Hebrew word God should have used instead of yôm when He was referring to an old earth while knowing that one of it's definitions means a long time period of fixed length. For me, yôm is a perfectly acceptable way of expressing an extremely long time period here. As you  know very well, the English words evening and morning have a similar problem.  Here is an assignment for you, if you choose to accept it Mr. Phelps, (of Mission Impossible fame), try to reword this Hebrew verse in a clearer way for an old earth interpretation. No English words allowed; only Hebrew. See if you can better God as a communicator. I think He did just fine, getting His message across and that His DAYS mean epochs of time. 

Brother Lee    

Lee et al


I undertsand your frustration, the feeling is mutual.
Gladly Jesus will inform us all when we meet in Him in heaven.

Another thought occurred to me to query the old earthers.
Would you accept then, that prior to us having this elongated debate, many generations before us have (in your opinion at least) understood Scripture wrongly?

And to add to that, did the patriarchs have any choice to believe in the yom being just a 24-hour period or a long period, since Psalm 90 was (i believe) penned down by Moses, many many many years (dare I say a "long period") after the events of Creation week.
What would a man like Job have believed (Job is believed to be the oldest book in the Bible)?
And what about Adam and Eve, Seth, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc?
Abraham and Job were aware of commandments (Gen. 26:5 and Job 23:12) from God, so there must have been some revelation available to them.
Were the patriarchs misled then?
If they were indeed, and yom does mean a long period, then God is a poor communicator.
Not only could He have written "evening, morning, the first thousand years" or "the first billions years" but there are also other Hebrew terms available to express a "long period".
So He could have written "evening, morning, the first long period" (I know, this sounds silly, but it is what the OE's imply).
Why did God use "day" if he could have used another term?

Lucien (from Georgia)

Jacob will show you the way out!
Of course God knows about & understands what "Time" is ...
and what "Days" are ... as He spent 33-years walking among us !!!
God created "Days"... and the Hebrew language as well.
God knows & understands EVERYTHING !!!
My point was that there could NOT possibly be any such
thing as a "God Day"... because He exists in a Timeless realm !!!
He can ONLY experience "Days" as He created them for us!
There is NO other "measurable" period of Time for a "Day"...
except that of a Solar Day ... in God's experience !!!
Let me save you your next Post ...
"What about the 1st 3-Days?"....... Right?
God knows about Day-4 ... as well as Day-4000 ...
even BEFORE there was a Day-1 ... !!!
He did NOT have to wait to experience what He had planned
for the future! God can NOT be surprised !!!
God can NOT learn !!!
God sees the End and the Beginning of "Time"... All of the time!
(He's got the DVD)

Bret* 2010

I feel trapped in an endless hopeless linguistic maze. If I find an escape tunnel to the real world, I'm escaping. If I find a ladder, I'm going over the wall. Bret, thanks, I think you have just provided me with the direction to the way out. When you stated that God has no days, you reminded me that time is necessary for causation to operate. Since God interacts with this universe He has a causal connection to it and us which involves time. Since these interactions have occurred over the entire history of our universe He must have experienced time to some degree and at some rate. Remember He lived with Adam and the Hebrew nation for a while. I agree with you that He is eternal and doesn't change, but He can, does and has experienced time throughout our history, so He can certainly could have a sense of time passing by.
To make all of those creatures that we are about to discuss, His causal involvement using time was certainly needed.


Brother Lee

It is so edifying to have my Brother of refining Light
back in the mix ... on the Topic of Biblical reliability !!!
Lucien could not have been more right ... when he stated
that YE's don't actually care about the Age of the Earth!
It is the "CLARITY" & "INFALLIBILITY" of God's Word
that makes us so passionate about this Topic !!!
We believe that the Earth & the Universe are whatever
age God claims they are! Either through direct measure
or by implication of the language & context He chose to use!
I don't believe that you guys are being disingenuous with
your arguments ... but the fact that I know how extremely
bright & well educated you guys are ... makes it difficult
for me to believe that you can find solace playing games
with semantics when it comes to the word "Day" ???
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "GOD DAYS" !!!
God Created "Time" !!!
He is NOT subject to it ... in ANY way !!!
God is ETERNAL !!!
He has NO beginning ... and will NEVER end !!!
Days (Time) can only be understood in terms of Man !!!
When Peter says a "Short period of Time" is LIKE a
"Long period of Time" ... and in turn a "Long period
of Time" is LIKE a "Short period of Time" to God ...
He is CLEARLY saying that "Time" has NO meaning to God !!!
God is The initial Eternal uncaused Cause of ALL THINGS !!!
Philosophically ... this is the ONLY tenable explanation
for the existence of a Non-Eternal Universe !!!
Perverting this Text to mean anything else ... strips the
Bible of one of its most profound & unique claims !!!

Bret* 2010

Thanks for your reply Lee.

Both 2 Peter 3:8 as well as Psalm 90:4 address God or talk about His "days". ("with the Lord" and "You" respectively)
Genesis 1 does not, it is addressed to man, giving us the record of Creation. Just as Exodus 31:12-17, which speaks about the 4th commandment being a sign for man to follow a certain pattern (work 6 days, rest one).
Genesis 1 and Ex. 31:12-17 are not addressed to God or about God's "days" (however you wish to interpret them), but to man. We don't understand God's "days", but we do understand 24-hour periods, with a sunset and sunrise.
That is why I think Ps. 90:4 and 2 Pet.3:8 are distinct from Gen.1 and Ex.31:12-17.
And I think may be the crux of this discussion.

Lucien
PS, guess I am still not mature enough in some sense to let others have the last word. I mean, if I now said the same to you "let's drop it", would it not be difficult since I just may have stated something that does not sit well with you, or makes you lose you hair (I can say this becuase I am balding). Some readers (not per se you) might think I have thus nothing more to say. Anyway, I know that is a weakness in me. God at work! Watch this space. God bless.

Hi Lucien,

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I think we will have to agree to disagree on this interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8 and Psalm 90:4. You seem to be adamant in your reasoning that both of these verses imply God's days can be any amount of time but throughout Genesis 1 they must be 24 hour days including Creation Week. This seems very inconsistent to me. Not that I disagree with you that God is timeless and capable of moving throughout all of the universe's history to accomplish His will. I have to disagree with you on two points:
1) I read these verses only as God's DAYS and they are extremely long because they are like a thousand years. The second part of 2 Peter 3:8 rewords the first part for emphasis, not to turn the meaning around and make it into a mystery, especially when Peter is making the point about patience. He wants the reader to understand that God waits for extremely long times being patience for us to turn our lives around. Your interpretation of the verses, that God is beyond time, would be out of place in this context. Are you sure that you are not reading the second phrase incorrectly or interpreting it just to be consistent with your young earth views? I think you are reading a new meaning into these two phrases that were not intended by the authors. This intention to make it conform to the YE view may have blinded you to interpret it correctly. Both verses are referring to 'day' in reference to God but you have interpreted both in a way that is referenced to mankind's day of 24 hours. I can see no way to interpret 'day' in either of these verses as 24 hours, since they are clearly intended as God's days in the context used. The thousand years referred to is in reference to mankind's interpretation of days adding up to years and representing 1000 of them.

2) Neither verse is a circular argument but you have claimed that 2Peter 3:8 is one. Maybe it is because you have replaced 'and' in the verse with 'but' in your mind and in your justification. This substitution flips the meaning around and conflicts what Peter states to try and make your case valid. There is no intention in Peter's version to turn it into a mystery. He just makes a straightforward statement and basically states it again.

Here is one authorities definition of a circular argument: "The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."
(T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning, Wadsworth, 2001)

Clearly, if you are saying the second statement in 3:8 cancels the first part, then it is not a circular argument. Maybe you meant to say, the verse is a mystery, or a conundrum. Two words with different meaning like day and millenium cannot be used to construct a circular argument when someone tries to equate them. In Psalm 90:4 you interpret 'day' as one of man's days instead of God's days. I see this verse 90:4 as clearly implying God's days which are much much longer more like a man's lifetime based on context than 3 earthly hours. This passage clearly implies that 'day' in this context is very long like a man's lifetime and not the short three hour period in human days.

These passages clearly show us that the Bible can be interpreted differently by people from different backgrounds and views about the world. Anyway, I don't think, our time should be wasted anymore on thrashing different interpretations of God's Word on the OE vs YE debate. I feel that enough information has been presented in the previous months of blogging that creation days 1-6 can be very long days. I think we OEs have pointed out why we believe that we are justified in our views of an ancient earth. Covering this over and over get boring to the reader and accomplishes nothing. I am sorry if you don't see it our way or can't tolerate our view, but we believe there is plenty of Biblical and natural justification for our OE view. We will have to agree to disagree on this, hopefully we have helped others watching to justify their position one way or another.

I would like to get into the reasons why we believe that Darwinism is wrong regardless of the age of the earth. Yes even the OEs, see a problem with Darwinism exclusive of common descent, and natural/theistic selection and would like to discuss the issues with it.

Brother Lee

Hi Stu,

I hear you about (lack of) time.
If only a day was like a thousand years! LOL

I will be flying to the US tomorrow for 18 days, as well as start another course of my masters, so not sure how fast and when I wil be up to speed with all that has been said.
I am very much aware I may be repaeting things that have already been discussed, and for that I apologise.

Lucien

PS, not Cali this time, otherwise I would buy you a coffee!!!

Lucien -- fair enough, but I would like to spend time reconstructing my argument since I must pass your "burden of proof" test. Unfortunately I don't have that time right now but will after Feb 15. So please place on hold until then. Meanwhile I ask that you spend time reading the previous posts on the subject.

No, you may not move on! javascript:emoticonp('')
I am still trying to understand how one (not just you) would build a solid Biblical case for understanding that the word yom in Gen.1 is to mean anything other than a normal day.
Unless somebody explains to me why (feel free to copy past your argument if you have written this already in a previous post), I will keep pushing for it.

I know that yom can mean a long period. I do not have any problem with that (see for example Gen. 2:4, translated "when" in the NIV).
But just saying that therefore the yom in Gen.1 means a long period, just because it could, is arbitray, unless you or someone can explain to me why this interpretation of yom should be so.

I have already given my case (for a 24-hour period):
There is an evening, and there is a morning, and there is a number with most of the days (OK, day 7 does not feature all of these).
Everywhere else in Scripture (OT) where these same structures appear, it means an ordinary 24-hour day. So I think that the burden of proof is on the people who think it should be a long period. Purely because A) this would then be the exception from the rest of the OT examples with these structures and B) it is (they are) also the first mentions in the Bible (first mentions are often quite important).
Add to this the creation week is where we get our work week from, as mentioned in the 4th Commandment, I think the case for 24-hour is very strong, much stronger than the long period idea.

Forgive me if someone has already done this in one of the many previous posts, please reprint it if so.
Stu, it would be so much easier to leave this to rest if I understood where this is coming from. And so far, the only reason I can come up with, is that extra-Biblical influences demand an old earth, but Scripture itself does not at all require it, and therefor, I see no reason to try and fit deep-time in.

I think that everyone should have a reason for what they believe.
If there is no reason, or if there is not some sort of argument behind anyone's views, then that is what I call arbitrary, or to use another term, mere opinion.
Mere opinion does not slice any bread in a debate or discussion.


In Christ,
a curious Lucien
(I hope I explained a bit better now)

Hi Lee.

Like you, I use sarcasm, probably a bit too much.
That aside, I owe you an elaboration on my previous post.
No, Peter did not contradict himself, how could he? He was inspired by God.
However, the first bit says that a day is like a thousand years.
You use this to defend your view, hastily adding that "like a thousand years, which can be much longer". Old earhters need in the order of billions of years, which is an order of magnitude MILLION bigger. I thing that is stretching the word "like".
But, immediately following, Peter goes to say that a thousand years is like a day. So even if I give you the billion years that I think is unwarranted, then this second part cancels the previous statement right out. In order words, OK, a day for God is like a billion years. BUT, a billions years is like a day, so we are right back where we began. It is a circular argument, which is certainly not invalid. It serves to demonstrate the purpose that for God, time is not the same as it is for you and I.

I do agree that it is about God's patience. He is waiting for everybody who will ever be saved, will indeed be saved. I don't want to go into predeterminism etc, that is another topic.
So what in essence these verses is saying, is that God is longsuffering. But because He knows the beginning from the end and He is outside of (or at least not hindered by) time, unlike us humans including the saints under the altar, who say "how long until you avenge us?" He will wait, because saved people are infinitely more important than a day or a thousand years extra.

Again, I would argue:
How can you use a Greek word/text, to define the first use of a Hebrew word. Just because it reads the same ("day") in English, does not mean you shoudluse one language to define a word in another language.


Re Usher:
OK, let's assume that generations were skipped (and I know the Hebrew language would allow for that, although it does not per se mean it did).
This is irrelevant.
There are numbers of years given when the son (or grandson for that matter) was born. In this case the time between Adam and Jesus is fixed around 4000 years, regardless of whether it comprised 60, or 120, or 180 or whatever generations.

I was waiting for someone to quote Psalm 90:4.
It was here that Peter is quoting from.
Note that apart from comparing a day with a thousand years, and the 'like' is now with day and not with year, it is ALSO compared to a watch in the night, i.e. 3 hours.
So are we all wrong, and the days in Gen. 1 are actually periods of 3 hours each?
No, again, I believe it is saying that God is not stuck in time like we human beings are. He is omniscient, this means past, present and future and apparently He must know about some people that are still to be saved and thus prayed for and witnessed to.


Lucien
(yes, I think I said this before, but I can indeed be blunt, but hopefully always coming to the point, without beating around the bush, and ideally always building arguments using Scripture. If not, feel free to point this out to me, bluntly or whatever way suits you best)

Dear Lucien,

I would have hoped by now (after 48 posts) that you would understand that my conclusion (which I will continue to hold tentatively) is not just based on mere opinion or prejudice, or is capricious ("arbitrary" as you say). Nor is my motivation and epistemology "purely based on extra-biblical influences." Nor am I arbitrarily reading my own meaning into the text ("eisegesis"). And I don't think that I am so arbitrary that "we might as well stop reasoning." I have just come to a different conclusion than you.

I appreciate your interpretation of the Scripture and will defend it as legitimate. And, I understand that you do not accept mine: That's fine with me. The same Holy Spirit has allowed it.

May we move on now?

Your friend in Christ,

Stu

Hi Lucien,
I am amazed at your response to my request to spell out 2 Petter 3:8 and what follows. Clearly you spelled out: Lee is right after all!' then 'And Lee stopped being right.' Then without hesitation you went off on a new topic on billions vs thousands of years. How are we supposed to resolve issues if you respond this way? I was hoping that you might give me your interpretation of these verses if you believe that Saint Peter contradicted himself or had something else in mind when he said these back to back statements. It almost seemed like you're saying that Peter contradicted himself, but I know you can't be implying that since you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe that Peter is saying something else other than that God's day are extremely long compared to our days, please explain your view. I interpret Peter's words as meaning exactly what they say in the first part of the sentence, then for emphasis, rephrasing them, in case some people didn't catch the meaning the first time around. Do you really think he meant to negate his first statement? If he was trying to get a different concept across what was it (that God's days are very short)?

This set of verses is about the patience that God has for us and waiting for us sometimes our entire lifetimes. This would be very brief from God's perspective since His days are extremely long (not exactly a thousand years but like a thousand years which can be much longer). My interpretation of 3:8 would complement this interpretation. Your interpretation would imply that God's days are neither short nor long. Your interpretation would not support the verses that follow his statement and would makes Peter seem confused and conflicted besides indicating the Bible argues with itself. Would you please explain your view about how 3:8 fits within the context of the other verses?

Regarding your question on Usher:

No. Usher performed a very detailed analysis of Biblical dates from Adam on, so I am generally okay with his analysis based on 24 hour days after day six. 24 hour days are appropriate regarding mankind's activities, but he didn't account for missing generations which could add a great deal of time to the 6000 years calculated. During creation week he totally disregarded Peter's statement and the one made in Psalms:

Ps 90:4 For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.
Ps 90:5 You sweep men away in the sleep of death; they are like the new grass of the morning—
Ps 90:6 though in the morning it springs up new, by evening it is dry and withered.

Even though God's DAYS are much longer as demonstrated in the text and by the use of evening and morning in Psalm 90, Usher still used 24 hour days in his calculations.

I think I'm Your Brother, But You Come Across So Hostile Toward Us OEs, I'm Not Sure,

Lee

PS Yes, I mean what I say throughout my postings except for some occassional sarcasm and thought provoking questions posed to stimulate dialogue.
Yes, the Bible is inerrant but YEs (and everyone else) seem to have a problem interpreting it correctly.

Hi Stu.

I am not so much interested in the age of the earth.
Rather, the reliability of Scripture is of utmost importance.
Your acceptance of Joshua's and Jonah's days as being 24-hour periods, but not in Genesis 1, is frankly quite arbitrary and once again, is purely based on extra-Biblical influences.
If we'll let arbitrariness reign, then yes, we might as well stop reasoning, because who is to say my opinion is better/worse than yours?
Yom is only debated by old earthers in Genesis 1. Why? Because it is the only place the billions of years can be fit in. Might I once again add that these billions of years are NOWHERE found in Scripture or even needed.
Reading them into Scripture is called eisegesis.

So where oh where in the context of Genesis 1 does yom mean a long period of time?
(don't bother quoting Gen. 2:4, I know it can mean a period of time)
I am still waiting on a pure exegesis on Genesis 1 that makes yom undoubtedly a long period.
Saying that yom in context means a long period is one thing, showing how (not restricted to Stu), is actually something that has not been done, as far as i know.

God bless,
Lucien

I am sorry that I don't have time right now to respond in any depth way to your requests/questions as I am slammed for the next month or so. Quickly, however --

daquamn - I will view the lecture and comment.

sumiala --
My conclusions are tentative but I base them on the best I can make of an inerrant Bible and an errant but fairly reliable mind observing nature.

I have already stated that I accept the biblical chronologies (subject to the missing generations). Those chronologies start in Yom 6. The old age of the earth is based on the length of Yom 1-5.

The interpretation of yom is based on context as I previously explained. Sometimes it is 24 hours as is clear from the context of Joshua and Jonah. Sometimes it is a indefinite period of time. Context determines the interpretation along with the full counsel of God, i.e., the relationship of the interpretation in question to all the other Scriptures.


All -- My purpose in this dialog is not to convince anyone to change their position on the matter. That is the work of the Holy Spirit working with each individual conscience through study, reason and prayer.

I am quite happy at this point to conclude this portion of the dialog (the age of the earth). We've been at it for several months now and it's time to move on as Lee suggested to the main topic where we can join together as brothers -- defeating Darwinism.

Stu

This is primarily to Stu's reply to my posts prior to Christmas, which in general I do not accept as anything conclusive.
At this point I won't go into all the points, although I could, but to home in on the years stipulated by the Bible.
Stu says the Bible does not necessitate the creation of the earth about 4000 years BC.
Yet Bishop Usher has this quite well documented in "The annals of the world". To refute the time between Adam and Jesus, Stu, you would have to dismiss the numbers given by Scripture.

So, question to all old earthers (answered by a simple yes or no):
Do you accept the numbers of years given by Scripture between Adam and Jesus, as summarised (and referenced) by bishop Usher, yes or no? (irrespective of generations skipped or not, the numbers are unambiguous)

-If yes, then we'll have to continue reviewing Stu's suggestion we should translate yom as "epoch" in Gen. 1 (why only there? Why not Joshua marching around Jericho or Jonah in the great fish?).
-If no, then you have a problem that you have just unlocked the door, and admitted that Scripture i not infallible. This will open up another debate about what Christians ultimate standard is. The Bible, or your opinion.

Lucien

Stu & Lee,

I was hoping that you might be able to take the time to view this lecture and let me know what you think. I'm very impressed with how well this lecture helps to explain a way for science and the Christian Faith to coexist to discover God's Creation.

Please take time (about an hour) to view this lecture when you have time.
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dlamoure/lecture.html

Thanks,

2 Peter 3:8
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

In small bits:
1) "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years,"
Lee is right after all!

2) "and a thousand years are like a day."
And Lee stopped being right.

And besides, what on earth is a thousand years going to do for you if you really need billions of years to fit in current day "science"?
Or does a thousand years actually mean a billion years?

In fact, do any of your posts actually mean what they say?
If a straightforward prose text does not mean what it says, then who/what determines what it means? Must be a standard greater than Scripture. If so, then we should ditch Scripture and go with the higher standard!