Ben, Congratulations on having read all the way through the thread. :-) Since PuritanSailor dealt with first part of your reply about science and miracles (and I also disagree that natural explanations should automatically be preferred to supernatural: there are no doubt 'natural' explanations for why a bunch of people would claim that Jesus rose from the dead, for instance), I'll just respond to this:

This seems to demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of the nature of mathematical proof, which GreenBaggins referenced. Actually all the theories you cited are only theories -- none of them have been 'proven'. We may suddenly find new data tomorrow to upset our most basic understanding of many of these things. Science cannot speak authoritatively as regards absolute proof, and it's authority about things not immediately observable -- because there is so much data that it cannot take into account -- is simply non-existent. Some of the most sophisticated atheistic philosophers -- like Bertrand Russell, who was also a mathematician -- speak with far less certainty about these things than you do, because they understood the philosophical limitations and the nature of scientific knowledge. In fact, you are finding Russell, Owen Barfield and such minds laughable in finding the theoretic nature of evolution something of a joke.

As regards the 'evidence' that exists for evolution, and the idea that theories in the scientific world are somehow 'more prestigious' (by which you seem to mean even better established? or are they merely more respected-- because those are two different things) than facts, I am not sure how one could think this. A model is a theoretical construct human minds have come up with to account for data, and other theories. This doesn't mean there is 'evidence' for the construct. It means the construct has been created to fit theories and data (& the 'evidence' of being able to use a theory predictively is something that may change with further data or that other theories could account for). The same data that exists is used in creation science constructs as well -- so I might just as easily say that the evidence supports creation science (indeed I believe it does, but this is not on the authority of science. It is on the authority of God's word).

Many of the opinions expressed on this thread in favor of six day creation represent a more considered, more widely and well read position of more immediate inquiry in scientific and philosophical fields than what you seem to demonstrate so far in your answering statements; and you have admitted that you aren't much acquainted with the grammatical, textual issues. If you disregard the text in a rush to argue the authority of 'respectable' scientific theories then you are indeed subordinating the infallible, divine, absolute nature of Scripture to a fallible human tool. This is what Poimen didn't want propogated on the board, not because we are afraid of facts or of science, but because we are afraid of the consequences to us and to others of undermining the authority of the text -- against what we confess about Scripture. All the best, Ben.

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

PS. a lot of replies were posted while I was alternately listening to Corelli and typing up mine -- hope it isn't too redundant.

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

Exactly, our disagreement concerns the historicity of the account not the account itself.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

The problem with your argument is that the other ANE cosmogonies are actually myth not history. They were created to deceive. Thus they cannot function the same way. In many ways, as noted above by Lane, the Genesis narratives are an apologetic against those false myths about origins. That Genesis provides a cosmogeny I will not deny, but Genesis is clearly teaching us not only the origins of Israel but of all mankind.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

You are correct that we should recognise differences between various ANE cosmogonies, and you admit that Genesis provides a cosmogony. That is its genre. Once we have that established we can look to its theological message. I agree that it is polemical, indeed I see its target as both a Canaanite Baal and a Babylonian Marduk but not excluding an Egyptian target also. I see no reason why it should not be a polemical attack on all three. Now whilst it does teach the origin of Mankind, its real focus is on Israel. It is explaining to the Israelite his genesis/origin.

In short, your points do not in any way undermine what I am arguing. I am here focusing upon pointing out that Genesis provides a biblical cosmogony over and against those who deny such a thing and argue it is real history.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

CSC - Michael Shermer’s Fact-Free Attack on Expelled Exposes Intolerance of Darwinists towards Pro-Intelligent Design Scientists

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Geocentricity

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

No, it's genre is historical narrative. A cosmogony doesn't have to be mythical. It simply provides the meta-narrative for life. In this case, our cosmogony is true, and the grammar and literary style mitigates against any poetic or figurative language.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.

Richard, a quick question -- you have said I think a couple times that the Genesis account is a cosmogony in the form of a history, while maintaining that it is not actual history. My immediate thought as an unsophisticated housewife was, 'how deceptive'. If you admit that it is in the form of history, is there any reason (disregarding science, as you indicate that your argument is more based on the text) for denying that it is both cosmogony and actual history, other than an argument that ANE myths don't work this way? (But doesn't that argument lose some of its force if ANE myths were corrupted as they were passed down and more mythologized, mixing some remnant of truth with much error while the biblical creation account was not in this way corrupted?)

You mentioned T. S. Eliot. The first time I read his poem 'The Wasteland' I thought it was a rather incoherent, but beautiful, jumble of images and thoughts without a real ideological structure or explanation. It seemed the only sensible reading to me, not because of the genre (all the poetry I had read up to that point was coherent) but because of the poem itself. When I found out people wrote whole books assigning coherent symbologies to it, I thought they had to be falling for a hoax. When I found out he did, I thought he had to be perpetrating it. It turns out that he was. He said in an interview that it was structureless, and that he wasn't even bothering whether he understood what he was saying. See this link about the notes. Yet if we look at his other poems and the genre, we would be led to read significance and coherence into the poem that isn't there. My point is that even in literature, trying to interpret away a natural reading of a text because of other things in the same genre isn't always a sound interpretative rule?

(added: by the way I agree with Patrick that the genre is actually historical narrative that sets forth a cosmogony: but even if we were to lump it in the same genre with ANE myths and focus on the cosmogony more I don't know that it follows to stop reading the creation account as literal history.)

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/genesis_weeks.pdf

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

And your point is what?

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

It is an article concerning ANE, as well as other related topics, and their relationship to the early chapters of Genesis. It is written by an expert in the Genre and a YECer. I was under the impression that such was the subtopic of the thread. If I was mistaken that such was the discussion then you can keep up your replies to PuritanSailor.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

It was just that the article does not deal with what I am arguing hence my confusion. Incidently, our understanding of the Psalms has been greatly enhanced by our understanding of ANE mythology.

Two good articles I would commend to you are:

Smick, E. B. (1982) “Mythopoetic Language in the Psalms”, Westminster Theological Journal. 44 pp. 88-98.

Smick, E. B. (1978) "Another Look at the Mythological Elements in the Book of Job", Westminster Theological Journal. 40(2) pp. 213-28.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

I thought your point was to read the Creation story as something less than history based on your views of ANE cosmology etc. If it is not that, then it is irrelevant to the conversation.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

I am saying that the Creation story is an ANE cosmology and should therefore not be understood as literal history. Its message is theological not historical.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Then the reason for posting the article stands. If you wish to read it, fine; if not that is also fine.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Having read the article, I still say it has nothing to with what I am arguing. The only mildly relevant bit is his argument against the view that "the most plausible explanation for the religion of Israel derives it by a process of ideological evolution from Israel’s neighbours" but I am not doing that. The other slightly relevant thing is his point that "the necessity of interpreting them against the Near Eastern cultural background is removed" but this is simply wrong. As I noted before, there is mythopoetic language throughout the OT.

His point is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Indeed, but there are different types (or forms) of Scripture. Poetry needs to be interpreted as poetry, history as history, prophesy as prophesy and cosmogony as cosmogony. That is where his point fails. The literary form sets the context, and we all know that sound exegesis demands we take into account the context.

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Richard -- you have said earlier that the cosmogony is 'in the form of history' -- does not history then constitute some part of the literary form and context? You make a dichotomy between theology and history, but we don't make such a dichotomy about the resurrection: we affirm that the doctrine is tied into the historicity. Can you argue that those who do not make such a dichotomy but hold that the theology/cosmogony are inherent in the historicity of the narrative are being unfaithful to the text?

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

After two days, he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him.
Let us know; let us press on to know the LORD; his going out is sure as the dawn; he will come to us as the showers, as the spring rains that water the earth.

Here you show that it is relevant, but that you just disagree.

"These last two examples raise another set of problems. When it is said that God employed symbols common in that day is it meant that both the symbol and what is symbolized were already known or that only the symbol was known with a completely different connotation? The distinction is an important one. For this argument to be convincing the former must be the case. Otherwise one is saying that God gave the symbol a completely new meaning. And if he did that we are no longer dealing with symbols common at the time, but with new symbols. Then the necessity of interpreting them against the Near Eastern cultural background is removed. Whether there is any ultimate relationship” between biblical and Babylonian accounts as we now have them they belong to different ideological worlds. The symbols are not the same because the ideology is different. The goddess Tiamat defeated in a war by the god Marduk, if she may be called a ‘symbol’; must be seen as a symbol within the context of Babylonian polytheism whereas the creation of heaven and earth belongs within the context of biblical thought. It is meaningless to say that God used the same symbol but changed its meaning. It is then no longer the same symbol."

The onus is on you to demonstrate that not just the symbols but also what is symbolized is the same.

Then it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) militates against the historicity of the account due to the scriptures demanding such.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC