Has anyone demonstrated that an olive tree can bear fresh leafs after being submerged under salt water for a year? The vegetation that we see now is on top of the geologic column. If the flood laid down all that dirt, where did all the vegetation come from? That is the question, not did vegetation exist.
Here is an article from answers in genesis on the subject: Vegetation
Also, you should come out to the northwest sometime and visit Mt. St. Helens. It is actually an amazing site. So, much destruction and life mixed up in one. Scientists said it would take years for Mt. St. Helens to come back from the devastation, but it didn’t take very long at all. You would be amazed on how quickly nature can adapt from a destructive event.
But I will go back to my example of “If the Bible says the sky is blue” argument. Let’s say the sky was red, and we read in the Bible that it said the sky was blue. Do you then claim the Bible is false or do you redefine the word sky to mean outer space where one could perceive that as being blue? If we can’t read something in simple linguistic terms than how can we ever understand anything that is being taught us? It would seem rather laborious of me to have to go through the whole Bible and double check, recheck, and then recheck again every time something comes up to challenge a simple interpretation, such as if the sky is blue.I examine both. Why should I believe my theology is more infallible than my science if I believe that both nature and the Bible are true? In my 7-hour Genesis lecture I covered pros and cons from both a biblical and a scientific perspective. I studied both. I didn't start with the belief that my understanding of one was perfect and then try to force the other to fit. I've seen people from both sides start there. It isn't pretty.
Okay, if an OEC is to maintain that the days are figurative, along with morning and evening, than what is not figurative? Is the whole thing figurative or just some of it? Where is the line drawn?Here we go with "context" again. "Morning" and "evening" refer to the beginning and end of whatever "day" is. It could be a literal morning and evening. Many argue that it does not have to be though. Look at how it is used in Psalms 90, also written by Moses. It isn't literal there. Daniel 8:26 is another example. I know that the passages are, arguably, figurative. To me it isn't a real strong argument. The OEC position though is that the passages in Genesis that say "And there was evening, and there was morning, the first day" have a lot of inferances that the translators filled in. The phrase "and there was" is not in the Hebrew. It also has a construct of "day one", not "the first day". The Hebrew actually reads "Evening morning day one". This kind of conscruct is not found elsewhere in Scripture. This is a valid argument that passages like Ps 90 and Dan 8 can't be used as proof texts for non-literal days. But it is also an argument against claims that "well everywhere else that the Bible says X means X so it has to mean X here". It cuts both ways. I always found proof texts for that kind of argument interesting. Some point to books by other authors. Some point to books written centuries apart, as if language usage cannot change. Some even point to books written in different languages. The fact that "all the world should be taxed", for example, does not mean that "all the earth was covered by the flood" doesn't mean all. LOL Arguments that "in X days" has to be literal since it is always literal everywhere else sound good, until you notice that six of the ten times that phrase is used is not even in the Old Testament (five of the six refer to building the temple back up in three days and could therefore be figurative), two of the times refer to the creation days themselves and to use them would beg the question, and the other two passages are in 2 Chronicles and Nehemiah - both written about 425 or 450 BC. Both of these verses that are left were presumably written by Ezra. He was a scribe in Babylon. Do we want to base our argument on the assumption that a scribe in Babylon in 450BC would use the same language phrases exactly the same way that a prince of Egypt would a thousand years earlier? These arguments sound good when you are preaching to the choir. I flunked choir a long time ago though.
Yeah, I do realize the emotion that comes into play with this topic. In fact, I left a church over this very issue. Not exactly over the issue of how long it took the earth to be created, but more on allowing multiple issues to be discussed that stood diametrically opposed to scripture and allow people to believe that those could be true, without showing why scripture shows them to be false. In discussing this issue, I am more curious than anything on how one defends certain arguments. It also helps me to better understand my own beliefs.I enjoy it as well. You have been very patient with me. You have also kept the discussion in the realm of academics and not emotion or condemnation, and that has helped. I've been on other boards where this topic quickly turns personal and ends up producing more heat than light. It is different here. One thought that came to mind is that so many people have their actual photos as their avatar. Makes it easier to keep in mind that you are dealing with a fellow brother and sister in Christ. I think I can discuss this topic without emotion since I don't have an interpretation that I am behind 100%. After many years of study of as many different interpretations as I could find, I have come to appreciate the strengths of more than one.