Reasons to Believe - RTB old earth

[darinhouston]

By the way, Apollos -- do you have a bound set of the Talmud? How long is it? Do you read its variant of aramaic? I understand it's never been translated in its entirety.

[darinhouston]

I find this discussion from a jewish mindset helpful...

http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48951136.html

Excerpt:

The idea of having to dig deeper is not a rationalization. The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2) tells us that from the opening sentence of the Bible, through the beginning of Chapter Two, the entire text is given in parable form, a poem with a text and a subtext. Now, again, put yourself into the mindset of 1500 years ago, the time of the Talmud. Why would the Talmud think it was parable? You think that 1500 years ago they thought that God couldn't make it all in 6 days? It was a problem for them? We have a problem today with cosmology and scientific data. But 1500 years ago, what's the problem with 6 days for an infinitely powerful God? No problem.

So when the Sages excluded these six days from the calendar, and said that the entire text is parable, it wasn't because they were trying to apologize away what they'd seen in the local museum. There was no local museum. The fact is that a close reading of the text makes it clear that there's information hidden and folded into layers below the surface.

The idea of looking for a deeper meaning in Torah is no different than looking for deeper meaning in science. Just as we look for the deeper readings in science to learn the working of nature, so too we need to look for the deeper readings in Torah. King Solomon in Proverbs 25:11 alluded to this. “A word well spoken is like apples of Gold in a silver dish.” Maimonides in The Guide for the Perplexed interprets this proverb: The silver dish is the literal text of the Torah, as seen from a distance. The apples of gold are the secrets held within the silver dish of the Torah Text. Thousands of years ago we learned that there are subtleties in the Text that expand the meaning way beyond its simple reading. It's those subtleties I want to see.

[steve7150]

Also most believe the earth and sun were created on the 4th day, if that's true why would the days be 24hr days before that?
I think there may be earth days of 24hrs which man is subject to, and then there are God days which can be epochs and may have been the first six days. Psalm 90 says a day to God is not 24 hours, and Moses wrote that. Additionally in Gen 2.4 says "the heavens and the earth when they were created, "in the day" referring to the time of God creating the universe "in the day" , also referring to time from God's perspective.

[Apollos]

Oh, I don't know. Genesis 1 reads like a poem to me. And cramming everything that happened on "day 6" into a single day seems a bit much, although I suppose it is not impossible.

TK

Yet it has none of the features of poetry, and all the features of prose. In fact, I don't think any other view could do a verse by verse commentary, because although it sounds nice in the abstract to talk of it as poetry, actually trying to interpret everything poetically wouldn't hold it, I don't think - i.e. 'the evening and the morning were the second day' - this isn't like Song of Solomon where the beloved is likened to something metaphorically.
So I think whatever problems and difficulties there might be in the text, I don't see any room for switching the genre.

[Apollos]

By the way, Apollos -- do you have a bound set of the Talmud? How long is it? Do you read its variant of aramaic? I understand it's never been translated in its entirety.

I have Neusner's set, but electronically in Logos. It's a huge set in actual books. I could probably read the Aramaic (I've done Hebrew and Syriac), but I have never seen it available, and the English alone is so expensive, I'd hate to think what a critical edition of the Aramaic would cost.

[Apollos]

I find this discussion from a jewish mindset helpful...

The idea of having to dig deeper is not a rationalization. The Talmud (Chagiga, ch. 2) tells us that from the opening sentence of the Bible, through the beginning of Chapter Two, the entire text is given in parable form, a poem with a text and a subtext.

I read through this chapter last night - it contained the same quote I quoted before from the Talmud, but nothing that would suggest a non-literal interpretation that I could find. There was a mystical, allegorical tradition within Judaism (some scholars - i.e. Gershom - would link it up with the later Kabbalah, and I think rightly), but I didn't see anything in the place cited. It did teach that there was a light source the first three days that was taken away and is now reserved for the righteous, presumably for the future.

[Apollos]

Also most believe the earth and sun were created on the 4th day, if that's true why would the days be 24hr days before that?
I think there may be earth days of 24hrs which man is subject to, and then there are God days which can be epochs and may have been the first six days. Psalm 90 says a day to God is not 24 hours, and Moses wrote that. Additionally in Gen 2.4 says "the heavens and the earth when they were created, "in the day" referring to the time of God creating the universe "in the day" , also referring to time from God's perspective.

Yes, in God's reckoning, a day is a thousand years. This metaphorical extension of the concept does presume that there is a normal day too, and a thousand years isn't long enough to help Ross et al. I think the answer to the first question is very simple.

[backwoodsman]

I think any honest assessment would agree that the traditional reading is the one that comes to the text as it is.

So, anyone who disagrees with you isn't being honest, or isn't capable of making an honest assessment? Very convenient, if you want to be sure you never have to examine your beliefs.

I'm not sure whose word I am supposed to have been taking.

You specifically mentioned Duane Gish and Walt Brown. What do you think they are -- unbiased sources or something?

You insist I provide documentation and examples for everything I said, even though it's all right there for the taking on RTB's website, most of it thoroughly documented and footnoted. Yet, you make pronouncement after pronouncement of supposed fact, with not a hint of source or documentation.

I'm not really interested in trying to convince you of anything. I pointed out some flaws in your position, and showed you a good place to start learning more about those flaws. Some might want to educate themselves to evaluate whether there's something they don't know or have been misinformed about; others, maybe so they can more effectively convince those with whom they disagree, by learning enough to be able to intelligently counter an opponent's position, instead of just misrepresenting and badmouthing them. But your responses lead me to believe you just want to argue, rather than learn. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't really have time for that.

[Apollos]

So, anyone who disagrees with you isn't being honest, or isn't capable of making an honest assessment? Very convenient, if you want to be sure you never have to examine your beliefs.

If someone doesn't acknowledge that the traditional interpretation is the most natural way of taking the text, then I do not think they are being honest with themselves. We all make such evaluations all the time, yet you've chosen to unfairly present this as some very convenient claim. If the meaning of a text is obvious, such that 99% of anyone without an agenda (including the wish to make scripture and modern scientific theory harmonious) can see clearly what it means, it isn't evidence that a person is unwilling to examine their beliefs if they think the one percent are kidding themselves. This is just you lashing out, as you do throughout your post.

Besides, unlike yourself, I backed up this claim with pointed questions about what 'evening and morning' can mean in your view, or where in Scripture a day is numerically qualified and not possessing the sense of 12 or 24 hours. The force of these two questions was obviously more than I anticipated, judging from your accusatory and reactive response, which is very disappointing. I do hope when you have cooled off that you will see how unfair and uncharitable you are being in your accusations against everyone else.

You specifically mentioned Duane Gish and Walt Brown. What do you think they are -- unbiased sources or something?

There are double-standards at play here. You mentioned sources too - was it wrong for me to mention people but not for you? Is any human being without bias, whether Ross or Brown? The difference is, you are not willing to provide evidence of your accusation against Gish and Brown, whereas you sent me to a link littered with errors and ignorance. Then you turn around and suggest I don't pursue truth because I did not further peruse this site. Frankly, any site that wants to be taken seriously had better put up better articles than the one you sent me to - errors of detail, of chronology, along with mistaken claims about Hebrew words. But the biggest reason I haven't looked up their site is simply because the view does not reflect what the text naturally and simply says, and you haven't been able to answer my questions, despite all the reading you've done on the site. It hasn't helped you much has it? Your argument has been that everyone else is biased and out to get you, that I don't love truth or else would read the site, and that you're not going to waste your time with me.

Anyway, I'm familiar with the line of reasoning - and no doubt the site shares (or has borrowed) the arguments of people like Meredith Cline - things couldn't have sprouted right away, it hadn't rained yet, there were too many animals to name, there was light before the sun etc. We could have discussed any one of those, had you brought them up.

You insist I provide documentation and examples for everything I said, even though it's all right there for the taking on RTB's website, most of it thoroughly documented and footnoted. Yet, you make pronouncement after pronouncement of supposed fact, with not a hint of source or documentation.

You criticize me for not substantiating anything even though you have never asked me to substantiate anything, while simultaneously justifying the fact that you have refused to answer questions and substantiate accusations and claims about the Hebrew.

I'm not really interested in trying to convince you of anything. I pointed out some flaws in your position, and showed you a good place to start learning more about those flaws. Some might want to educate themselves to evaluate whether there's something they don't know or have been misinformed about; others, maybe so they can more effectively convince those with whom they disagree, by learning enough to be able to intelligently counter an opponent's position, instead of just misrepresenting and badmouthing them. But your responses lead me to believe you just want to argue, rather than learn. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't really have time for that.

You're not interested in convincing, or being convinced? Your responses lead me to believe you are being very over-reactive and non-rational about all this, due to your past experiences and run-ins with people.

I have asked you some very simple questions as this is a public discussion forum, where you provide reasons for your view and answer objections. But it seems you are fixated on how bad everyone else is, how everyone else is creating division, how people like me are 'badmouthing' you and 'misrepresenting' you, and how I just want to argue when all I am really doing is asking some pointed questions which challenge your views. You insist Brown and Gish are biased without a shred of supporting evidence to your negative aspersions on their character, while sending me to a link filled with ignorant and misleading statements about just about everything it touches on, and then get mad that I'm not spending more time on the site.

If you really feel so threatened by this discussion, and if you are so totally unable to substantiate your claims about what the Hebrew means, or about how bad other people are, then I would suggest that rather than becoming accusatory towards others, that perhaps you should avoid this kind of discussion.

[steve7150]

If someone doesn't acknowledge that the traditional interpretation is the most natural way of taking the text, then I do not think they are being honest with themselves. We all make such evaluations all the time, yet you've chosen to unfairly present this as some very convenient claim. If the meaning of a text is obvious, such that 99% of anyone without an agenda (including the wish to make scripture and modern scientific theory harmonious) can see clearly what it means, it isn't evidence that a person is unwilling to examine their beliefs if they think the one percent are kidding themselves. This is just you lashing out, as you do throughout your post.




Trying to reconcile scripture with what we see in the natural universe is anything but dishonest, in fact i think it is a sign of a thoughtful inquiring mind who is looking for truth, a person who believes scripture yet does not dismiss science. You call it an agenda, i call it honest inquiry. Why you would call it an agenda is beyond me
Re Psalm 90.4 , i see it as clearly poetic since Moses first says "For in your sight a thousand years are like yesterday that passes by" , BUT THEN Moses says "like a few hours of the night." So which is the literal interpertation , is a God-day a thousand years or is it a few hours to God like a thousand years to man. To me Moses is simply saying a God-day is a long period of time. I suspect to Moses there was'nt much difference between thousands or millions, he just meant an epoch.
As i previously mentioned if the earth and sun were created during the 4th day, where did the 24 hour days before the creation of the sun come from? It would have no relevance to anything. Man-days are 24 hours because we are subject to the earth, God is not and the creation days are God-days.