Creation question.....

[BobVigneault]

The Bawb, The Jacob, The Josh, The et al.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

I don't doubt that these are good people. I have never made value-judgments on the character of non-YECers. But I can turn it around and say that I know so many good people who are YECers and just can't imagine they would be theologically wrong.

Being "theologically wrong" and "anti-Biblical" are very different things. Also, how does an Old Earth view "strain the history" of the Genesis account?

 

[AV1611]

Look, I'm a profoundly ignorant Arkansan here, but I just don't see how OECers can account for a non-literal, quasi-mystical, thousand year expanded creation that is figurative in language which has this sudden transition into the historical, literal narrative of the Fall.

I am not OEC but in your estimation who wrote Genesis? (Aside from God)

 

[A5pointer]

I too wonder why some get so worked up in defending the literalness of "day". We all agree that there are many many instances in scripture that are not meant to be "literal". As has been said it need not be a threat to biblical accuracy.

Because of the waw conversive (consecutive). In 99.9% of the cases it is used in Scripture it is chronological narrative.

But the sword cuts both ways. Revelation 21-22 is obviously poetic. That means it very well could not be history, which means it is probably not real. Ergo, heaven is not a place (contra Belinda Carlyle) but a poetic expression of man's deepest longing.

You jump from non-literal=not history/not real. Why?

 

[AV1611]

Why? If you've a point to make, make it.

My point is simply this, what role do you see redactors having in the completed canon? Moses did not write all of Genesis hence we need to rethink our approach to the Pentateuch and how we understand it. Every genre of Canon needs to be interpreted using rules specific to that genre, hence the need to determine the genre of Genesis 1-2. Until we do this, we are on shakey ground indeed.

 

[A5pointer]

Look, I'm a profoundly ignorant Arkansan here, but I just don't see how OECers can account for a non-literal, quasi-mystical, thousand year expanded creation that is figurative in language which has this sudden transition into the historical, literal narrative of the Fall. At what point does the rendering of the text change and denote such a transition? I'm with the Bawb, the Jacob, et al on this 'n.

Jesus on His way to the cross says I am the door. Does a non-literal approach to door lead anyone to doubt the historicity of the crucifixion?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Why? If you've a point to make, make it.

My point is simply this, what role do you see redactors having in the completed canon? Moses did not write all of Genesis hence we need to rethink our approach to the Pentateuch and how we understand it. Every genre of Canon needs to be interpreted using rules specific to that genre, hence the need to determine the genre of Genesis 1-2. Until we do this, we are on shakey ground indeed.

So when, then, does the text between Gen. 2 and Gen. 3 indicate a transition from figurative or day age, to historical narrative?

Genesis 2:4 looks like a pretty clear transition point to me. Even John MacArthur, a YECer, notes that Genesis 2:4 marks the beginning of the "history of the heavens and earth" and that it "fills in the details" left out of Genesis 1-2:3.

 

[A5pointer]

Jesus on His way to the cross says I am the door. Does a non-literal approach to door lead anyone to doubt the historicity of the cricifixion?

Are you likening the Creation Account, to the Historical Narrative of Jesus saying, "I am the door...Good Shepherd...Bread of Life?"

No, comparing day to bread.

 

[Christusregnat]

Scripture also teaches that one day is as a 1000 years...

So the first three days could be three thousand years..I personally hold to the six days of creation..

I had to answer a question in Science one year explaining how the earth could show such an old age if it is only a few thousand years (using Biblical references)..and I used an arguement about the one day being as a thousand years..if one day is as a thousand years, and there have been X number of days that would be X number of thousands of years that have past..making the earth old..the professor was actually intrigued by my response, as it was one she hadn't heard before but it made her look up the verses I refered to. And when we include the sudden flood, and receeding waters that too would effect what the age of the earth appears to be..

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

All well and good, but the fact remains that a day is AS a thousand years, and IS NOT a thousand years. The only way a day is as a thousand years is because God is supra-temporal, and therefore not subject to the process of time as we are; this is what Peter uses to comfort his audience.

Analogies ARE NOT truth; they are likenesses of truth. That is, unless you are Barthian, Leithartian, Nominalist or Neo-Orthodox, which I don't think you are; I'm just being a stinker

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Christusregnat]

Why is there a debate?

There is great debate because the text itself is not clear. As Mason has pointed out, Augustine, to which we could add a number of Greek Fathers, saw the creation account for what it was, an account of creation. It is not a scientific treatise. We need to look at the story behind the account, not least its relation with Ancient Near East creation accounts as regards Mythopoetic language and thought forms. Further, we need to take into account the work of redactors.

Howdy AV1611,

Let me see if I understand:

1. Genesis 1-2 is textually unclear (or unclear in reading)?
2. The Genesis 1-2 account provides no knowledge (this is what science, or scientia means: knowledge), but is a story
3. the Bible is really a story book (at least in Genesis 1-2) not intended to give us historical accounts, but nice religious stories
4. Comparative literature, namely that of wicked degenerated uninspired pagans, helps us understand our book without knowledge, which we unspiritual sort misinterpret as providing scientia.

WOW! What a dunce I am! I actually thought that Jesus rose from the dead, but now I understand that I must see the story behind the resurrection accounts. Whew! This makes Christianity a little more acceptable to my pagan friends! OH, and I should check out the comparative literature on the Phoenix and Tamuz in order to understand God's neat story about new life.

Maybe you're playing devil's advocate, but then again, maybe I am too

Cheers,

Adam

 

[RamistThomist]

Look, I'm a profoundly ignorant Arkansan here, but I just don't see how OECers can account for a non-literal, quasi-mystical, thousand year expanded creation that is figurative in language which has this sudden transition into the historical, literal narrative of the Fall.

I am not OEC but in your estimation who wrote Genesis? (Aside from God)

Joseph

 

[Christusregnat]

I too wonder why some get so worked up in defending the literalness of "day". We all agree that there are many many instances in scripture that are not meant to be "literal". As has been said it need not be a threat to biblical accuracy.

5 Pointer,

this is a threat to the method of interpreting the Bible.

If one arbitrarily sets aside the literal meaning of the text, without a biblical reason to do so, the Scriptures then become a smorgasbord for his appetites. What he likes, he accepts; what he doesn't like, he demythologizes.

You can talk about the inerrancy (or "accuracy") of Scripture all you want, but we're talking about the perspicuity and clarity of Scripture at this point. Without a clear and intelligible word for God, it doesn't really matter that it is "accurate" because no one would be able to understand its contents.

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Christusregnat]

Look, I'm a profoundly ignorant Arkansan here, but I just don't see how OECers can account for a non-literal, quasi-mystical, thousand year expanded creation that is figurative in language which has this sudden transition into the historical, literal narrative of the Fall.

I am not OEC but in your estimation who wrote Genesis? (Aside from God)

Joseph

Then He opened to them all things written concerning Himself in the Law of Joseph, and the Prophets and the Psalms

 

[RamistThomist]

I am not OEC but in your estimation who wrote Genesis? (Aside from God)

Joseph

Then He opened to them all things written concerning Himself in the Law of Joseph, and the Prophets and the Psalms

Joseph didn't write most of the Law. Or you can still say "Moses did it," serving as Joseph's redactor on Genesis.

 

[A5pointer]

Are you likening the Creation Account, to the Historical Narrative of Jesus saying, "I am the door...Good Shepherd...Bread of Life?"

No, comparing day to bread.

Well, it doesn't relate. The Gospel account to which you allude is a historical account of Jesus saying, "I am the Door." So, within the context, it is understood that He is obviously being figurative concerning being a Door. On the other hand, the Creation account is not where we read of Moses telling this story to people. Rather, it, in itself, is a historical narrative of Creation.

We agree that Genesis is an historic narrative of creation, I do not know why you would think those who question the intended meaning of "day" would think otherwise. And one man's "obvious" is not another man's. The account does have a peculiar structure and does present harmonization difficulties when forced to be read like a logical science text.

 

[RamistThomist]

No, comparing day to bread.

Well, it doesn't relate. The Gospel account to which you allude is a historical account of Jesus saying, "I am the Door." So, within the context, it is understood that He is obviously being figurative concerning being a Door. On the other hand, the Creation account is not where we read of Moses telling this story to people. Rather, it, in itself, is a historical narrative of Creation.

We agree that Genesis is an historic narrative of creation, I do not know why you would think those who question the intended meaning of "day" would think otherwise. And one man's "obvious" is not another man's. The account does have a peculiar structure and does present harmonization difficulties when forced to be read like a logical science text.

History implies chronology. Thus the use of the waw (I have yet to see anyone deal with this). Why is the use of the waw in the rest of Genesis historic but the use of the waw in 1-2 (where it is more predominantly used than anywhere else in the Bible), not historic?

It is purely arbitrary for you to say, "This is historic" but "this is not" when the prime indicator of history, a waw is used in both cases.

 

[A5pointer]

The account does have a peculiar structure and does present harmonization difficulties when forced to be read like a logical science text.

1. Maybe (but not really).
2. Who's doing the forcing of reading here?

There seems to be eisogesis for OECer. I mean, seriously, who's gonna read Genesis 1-3 and gather the Day Age theory exegetically and according to the Analogy of Scripture minus thoughts purported from elsewhere externally?

Joshua, I understand your concern and admire your tenacity in defense. I am not a day ager. Just someone who says it is difficult to pigeon hole the days to 24 hours. I have no problem with an instantaneous creation. That would be my opinion at this time. It takes a way the difficulties of harmonization and allows for the brilliant structure of the literature to say what it says. Yahweh creates all from nothing and rests.

 

[AV1611]

History implies chronology. Thus the use of the waw (I have yet to see anyone deal with this). Why is the use of the waw in the rest of Genesis historic but the use of the waw in 1-2 (where it is more predominantly used than anywhere else in the Bible), not historic?

May be you would like to set forth your argument using the waw with supportive texts. I take it you are simply refering to the repetition of "and".

 

[Poimen]

Gentlemen:

I keep reading about difficulties of harmonization, uniqueness of arrangement etc. Please indicate from the text where these things occur.

 

[RamistThomist]

History implies chronology. Thus the use of the waw (I have yet to see anyone deal with this). Why is the use of the waw in the rest of Genesis historic but the use of the waw in 1-2 (where it is more predominantly used than anywhere else in the Bible), not historic?

May be you would like to set forth your argument using the waw with supportive texts. I take it you are simply refering to the repetition of "and".

Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.

Now, as to textual support. I will not copy paste every Hebrew verse that has "and" in it!

 

[AV1611]

Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.

I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.

I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.

You're exactly right. The word waw simply indicates things happened in a specific order. No one is denying that. The only issue is the length of time of each day...

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Gentlemen:

I keep reading about difficulties of harmonization, uniqueness of arrangement etc. Please indicate from the text where these things occur.

From an earlier post by AV1611:

Day 1: Let there be light (1:3).
Day 4: Let there be lights (1:14).

Day 2: Let there be an expanse to separate water from water (1:6).
Day 5: Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20).

Day 3: Let dry land appear (1:9); Let the land produce vegetation (1:11).
Day 6: Let the land produce living creatures (1:24); Let us make man (1:26); I give you every seed bearing plant...and every tree that has fruit with seed in it...for food (1:29).

Notably, creation of light occurs 3 days before the creation of the universe (Day 1 and Day 4). Also, the narrative ends after God rests in the first part of Genesis 2, and then picks up again in greater detail and continues with the Garden account and the Fall. It's a unique structure, to say the least....

 

[A5pointer]

Yikes, looks like it may be a well structured literary device.

 

[AV1611]

You're exactly right. The word waw simply indicates things happened in a specific order. No one is denying that. The only issue is the length of time of each day...

But even then you see the length of the day is unimportant because the purpose of Moses was not to set forth a scientific timeline of creation but was providing Israel with their own cosmology.

 

[A5pointer]

I just read over some work on this in an unpublished book on Biblical symbols and images. The Author attributes this structure's intent to bring focus to the 7th day where God unlike mesopotamian gods finishes and rests. Points of note.

1. There are not qualifiers "there was morning and evening" like the other days. Thus highlighting Yahweh's eternal rest from creating.

2.The structure is as seen is a 3/3/1 pattern of offsetting parallelism as has been seen above with focus on the 1(the seventh day)

3. The number 7 seen as a symbol for fullness or completeness in ancient literature including the Bible.

4. It may be unreasonable to see eternal God operating in time at all in creation. Lending support to instantaneous creation.

5. Why 2 accounts of creation? ANE tought of word/deed. Power was thought to be held in words and deeds. The first account shows God speaking the second shows God doing things thus confirming the His power through word and deed.

There is more. I find it compelling. The Author in recognizing the occassion of the book concludes:

"Looking at the careful way Moses structured this account in terms of what he says (the content) as well as how he says it (the form), combined with the occasion on which it was written, the only conclusion which does full justice to all of the facts at hand is that Genesis 1:1-2:4a is not designed to be a scientific account of creation "the way it happened." Moses had a purpose here far different; one that fit his situation-- the situation the people he was leading out of bondage in Egypt were confronted with-- and it was that situation he addressed with brilliance and cogency in terms of the structure and the substance of his account."

This work is contained in a chapter on the "Sea" as a biblical symbol and image" I can e-mail the chapter to anyone who would like to take a look. My summary does not do it justice.

 

[RamistThomist]

Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.

I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.

If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the waw signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.

I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession.

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Simple. Read every "and" in the Old Testament. With the exception of a few Psalms, written in obvious poetic form, every and implies temporal, narrative chronology.

I don't think that anyone is denying an obvious chronology from day 1 to day 7, the issue is the import of this.

If you posit an obvious 1-7 chronology, and that the days are sequential (which is what the waw signifies, then you are necessarily a YECer. Welcome to the camp.

I am surprised the moderators and TRs haven't come in to defend the Confession.

Sorry to have to disagree on this yet again, but subscribing to a 1-7 chronology does NOT necessarily make one a YE creationist. That the events of Day 1 happened before Day 2, which happened before Day 3, etc. does not imply a calendar day.

I agree that the writers of the Confession believed in 24 hr days, but the wording is still broad: "in the space of six days." This of course resolves nothing, because one of the key issues is what exactly constitutes a day in this account.

As an aside, here is an interesting excerpt from Calvin:

"...it is certain, from the context, that the light was so created as to be interchanged with darkness. But it may be asked, whether light and darkness succeeded each other in turn through the whole circuit of the world; or whether the darkness occupied one half of the circle, while light shone in the other. There is, however, no doubt that the order of their succession was alternate, but whether it was everywhere day at the same time, and everywhere night also, I would rather leave undecided; nor is it very necessary to be known."

 

[Poimen]

Gentlemen:

I keep reading about difficulties of harmonization, uniqueness of arrangement etc. Please indicate from the text where these things occur.

From an earlier post by AV1611:

Day 1: Let there be light (1:3).
Day 4: Let there be lights (1:14).

Day 2: Let there be an expanse to separate water from water (1:6).
Day 5: Let the water teem with creatures and let birds fly above the earth (1:20).

Day 3: Let dry land appear (1:9); Let the land produce vegetation (1:11).
Day 6: Let the land produce living creatures (1:24); Let us make man (1:26); I give you every seed bearing plant...and every tree that has fruit with seed in it...for food (1:29).

Notably, creation of light occurs 3 days before the creation of the universe (Day 1 and Day 4). Also, the narrative ends after God rests in the first part of Genesis 2, and then picks up again in greater detail and continues with the Garden account and the Fall. It's a unique structure, to say the least....

I responded to that here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/376726-post45.html

 

[Poimen]

Structures, numbers, parallels are all fine. None of them necessitate a change in the length of the days as determined by the text (morning and evening).

The length of the day is important because it is repeated throughout the narrative.