We can also add in the different language used at the end of 1:5. The other days are "second day, third day" etc. But not day one. While most translations give is as a sequential "first day" the Hebrew literally says, "Day one" (יוֹם אֶחָד). Echad carries the idea of unity, completeness, wholeness. It is a singular, composite unity. It is the word used in the Shema. Reshon is the Hebrew for "first" and that isn't what's used. The echad is what the man is later missing, and what is supplied to him by the creation of the woman.
Disappointing to hear that the Ignatius Bible caves in to secular scientism rather than believe the Word of God. But, that's expected of the professional Catholic apologentsia class these days, whose combination of faithlessness and embarrassment emboldens them to accept and proclaim every modern scientific theory under the guise of the tired mantra, "faith and science are not in conflict."
They say this all the time, but what they mean is that they'll accept things like evolution, belief in aliens, and an old earth, and then try to shoehorn Scripture into supporting these views. They make Genesis subservient and secondary to secular academia, then proudly claim that faith and reason are in harmony with each other. They will insist that we must be humble and not force Scripture to mean something it doesn't, but they themselves do not have the humility to accept God's word as it is written.
Indeed, one of the best ways to become skeptical of the faith and lose interest in the Church is by listening to these fools who call themselves "apologists."
Benjamin, in your dialogue with Joshua Charles there was mention of the Gospel of John structure paralleling the organization of the tabernacle when it came to John waiting for Peter to enter the tomb. Can you please point me to the source for this theory I wish to read about it please good sir!
So how literal is it then? Does this point toward the text being more literal, even though it would be doing so via a theological understanding that seems to rely on the reader interpreting the text spiritually?
Origen & Augustine, if I remember correctly, used the same argument as Hahn, so how prevalent was this line of reasoning you’re using to its original audience? When was it lost?
Have you ever looked into what Jewish tradition has to say about it? I have not, just curious.
Yes, I would say this points towards the text being literal.
St. Augustine only used this line of reasoning because he had a prior motivation to read the "days" of creation as non-literal, i.e. his misinterpretation of Sirach which he thought stated the world was created instantaneously.
I don't know about Origen or other ancient Jewish commentators, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that Exodus 20:8-11 clearly interprets the "days" of creation as literal, 24-hour periods.
From my experience, "days" are only understood non-literally when there's a prior motivation to do so. No one who reads the text plainly could come away thinking the days were anything other than 24-hour periods of light and darkness. While "day" can have a range of meaning, that range is limited by context. And when that context is cycles of "evening" and "morning," the idea that "day" means anything other than 24-hours is forced.
We can also add in the different language used at the end of 1:5. The other days are "second day, third day" etc. But not day one. While most translations give is as a sequential "first day" the Hebrew literally says, "Day one" (יוֹם אֶחָד). Echad carries the idea of unity, completeness, wholeness. It is a singular, composite unity. It is the word used in the Shema. Reshon is the Hebrew for "first" and that isn't what's used. The echad is what the man is later missing, and what is supplied to him by the creation of the woman.
Disappointing to hear that the Ignatius Bible caves in to secular scientism rather than believe the Word of God. But, that's expected of the professional Catholic apologentsia class these days, whose combination of faithlessness and embarrassment emboldens them to accept and proclaim every modern scientific theory under the guise of the tired mantra, "faith and science are not in conflict."
They say this all the time, but what they mean is that they'll accept things like evolution, belief in aliens, and an old earth, and then try to shoehorn Scripture into supporting these views. They make Genesis subservient and secondary to secular academia, then proudly claim that faith and reason are in harmony with each other. They will insist that we must be humble and not force Scripture to mean something it doesn't, but they themselves do not have the humility to accept God's word as it is written.
Indeed, one of the best ways to become skeptical of the faith and lose interest in the Church is by listening to these fools who call themselves "apologists."
Benjamin, in your dialogue with Joshua Charles there was mention of the Gospel of John structure paralleling the organization of the tabernacle when it came to John waiting for Peter to enter the tomb. Can you please point me to the source for this theory I wish to read about it please good sir!
Certainly! See this article by Brian Phillips: https://circeinstitute.org/blog/blog-walk-through-tabernacle/
Thank you very much! Bless you and keep up the good work.
Very compelling. I’ve never heard of this before!
So how literal is it then? Does this point toward the text being more literal, even though it would be doing so via a theological understanding that seems to rely on the reader interpreting the text spiritually?
Origen & Augustine, if I remember correctly, used the same argument as Hahn, so how prevalent was this line of reasoning you’re using to its original audience? When was it lost?
Have you ever looked into what Jewish tradition has to say about it? I have not, just curious.
Yes, I would say this points towards the text being literal.
St. Augustine only used this line of reasoning because he had a prior motivation to read the "days" of creation as non-literal, i.e. his misinterpretation of Sirach which he thought stated the world was created instantaneously.
I don't know about Origen or other ancient Jewish commentators, but I can tell you with 100% certainty that Exodus 20:8-11 clearly interprets the "days" of creation as literal, 24-hour periods.
From my experience, "days" are only understood non-literally when there's a prior motivation to do so. No one who reads the text plainly could come away thinking the days were anything other than 24-hour periods of light and darkness. While "day" can have a range of meaning, that range is limited by context. And when that context is cycles of "evening" and "morning," the idea that "day" means anything other than 24-hours is forced.