Creation and exegesis

[themuzicman]

One of the things I've always struggled with is how to understand and exegete the creation story in light of what science is telling us. I've always had an issue with theology defining ends for science, but I wasn't sure how that worked out from an exegetical standpoint.

I went to a conference a couple of weeks ago on this, and Dr. John Walton did a wonderful talk on the cultural and scientific context that Genesis was written in. More specifically, he spoke about what in the creation story was important to someone from the ancient near east (I'll use ANE for this from here on.)

And while I'd seen that order was very important for creation in the way the text is put together (On the X day... and there was evening and morning on the xth day), he showed us that the primary concern for those in the ANE isn't the actual time it took to create, but rather how God brought order from chaos, or in our case the "void."

Thus, "light" isn't a substance, but rather is the feature that controls time (day, night, months, seasons, years, etc.) "Separation of waters" deals with weather. (The waters above is the sky, which those in the ANE believed was water and was where rains came from. The waters below are the source of streams and lakes and seas.) And plants were the primary source of food. So, in the first three days, God brings order to the fundamentals of ANE life: Time, weather, and food.

The final three days are the functionaries that operate these orders. So, the sun, moon and stars (created AFTER plants, oddly enough) are the functionaries of time. Fish and birds inhabit the "waters" (above and below). And finally beasts and mankind both benefit from and groom plants, the sources of food.

Thus, God declares order from the void. And, as such, while these declarations may happen in 7 days, they do not actually speak to how long creation took to fulfill God's declarations, nor is it a scientific basis for speaking about how old the earth is or what actually happened when, as that isn't what the ANE was concerned with, nor did it have a modern scientific view as we do.

Thus, Genesis, while theologically significant, also fits into the same category as the earth being flat and the sun standing still in the sky. They are accurate representations of the ANE thought about these things, but not necessarily scientific as we understand them today.

And this isn't to say that the earth is or isn't a particular age. But it does mean that we can now rely on science to define scientific things, and rely on Scripture to define theological things.

(Just FYI, I am not an evolutionist or even theistic evolutionists. I am a creationist, although maybe not in the traditional mold, anymore. I do think that the creation of Adam and Eve is important to Christian theology.)

 

[KWCrazy]

We can rely on science to define scientific things so long as we keep ourselves clear as to what is scientific and what is not. There are 333 miracles listed in the Bible, none of which can be validated scientifically. The fact that they violate the laws of science is what makes them miracles in the first place. God doesn't do card tricks. He frezes time to make the sun stand still in the sky for a day and rolls back time to make the shadow on the sun dial 10 degrees backward. He chose an impossible sequence; plant life before the sun; and an impossible time frame; six days to create the universe; to demonstrate that He is the one true God; Lord of the universe. He is the creator of everything that was made.

God doesn't tell us how old the earth is, but He gave us the genealogies from Adam to Jesus and told us how long man has existed. Add six days, and you have the answer about how old the earth is. He didn't explain the shape of the earth, but He told us He would remove our sins as far as the east was from the west. He knew that the world was round, that north and south met at the poles, and that east and west would never meet. He didn't tell us about space, but He lets us know that He hangs the earth on nothing. He didn't describe atoms and molecules, but He told us of things unseen.

To the person who doesn't understand that science is the study of the physical world around us and is limited to things which can be studied by the scientific method, it would appear that science contradicts what the Bible teaches about special creation, the great flood and a relatively young earth. The rest of us know that science simply cannot study such things, and if it did, it cannot arrive at a correct answer. Creation violated the laws of science, and science cannot account for the supernatural.

Genesis is easy to understand. All you need it the faith of a mustard seed and the revelation of the Holy Spirit and all things will be known to you.

 

[themuzicman]

We can rely on science to define scientific things so long as we keep ourselves clear as to what is scientific and what is not. There are 333 miracles listed in the Bible, none of which can be validated scientifically. The fact that they violate the laws of science is what makes them miracles in the first place.

And that's fine. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise.

God doesn't do card tricks. He frezes time to make the sun stand still in the sky for a day and rolls back time to make the shadow on the sun dial 10 degrees backward. He chose an impossible sequence; plant life before the sun; and an impossible time frame; six days to create the universe; to demonstrate that He is the one true God; Lord of the universe. He is the creator of everything that was made.

If that is indeed the case that's fine. What I'm saying is that given the understanding of the universe and the priorities of those in the ANE, it is quite possible that Gen 1 isn't about physical creation, but rather order creation. We apply these principles everywhere else in the bible except Gen 1-2.

God doesn't tell us how old the earth is, but He gave us the genealogies from Adam to Jesus and told us how long man has existed.

But we also know that genealogies don't include every generation. The Matthew genealogy, for example, skips at least 3 generations, and yet this is acceptable. Probably because they aren't there simply to give us a time record.

Again, we have to ask the question of whether the ANE author was concerned with the same issues that we are.

Add six days, and you have the answer about how old the earth is. He didn't explain the shape of the earth, but He told us He would remove our sins as far as the east was from the west. He knew that the world was round, that north and south met at the poles, and that east and west would never meet.

Actually, on a spherical earth, they do meet... at the international dateline. For a flat earth (as the ANE believed), those are as far apart as one can be.

He didn't tell us about space, but He lets us know that He hangs the earth on nothing. He didn't describe atoms and molecules, but He told us of things unseen.

Actually, the text tells us that they believed space was water. And the sense in which creation hangs on nothing comes from the idea of the earth being surrounded by water, above and below

To the person who doesn't understand that science is the study of the physical world around us and is limited to things which can be studied by the scientific method, it would appear that science contradicts what the Bible teaches about special creation, the great flood and a relatively young earth. The rest of us know that science simply cannot study such things, and if it did, it cannot arrive at a correct answer. Creation violated the laws of science, and science cannot account for the supernatural.

And given the mind of the ANE, one can say the same of Genesis 1 and 2. What we see is a reflection of what they thought the universe was and what was important in creation. If God and Moses both thought that Gen 1 and 2 should be about creating order out of the void and not giving a scientific account of creation, then we shouldn't be looking to make a scientific statement from it.

Have you considered that God's priority might not have been to make claims about physical creation?

Genesis is easy to understand. All you need it the faith of a mustard seed and the revelation of the Holy Spirit and all things will be known to you.

Well, Genesis is easier to understand (and you get a better understanding) when you understand the mind of the man/men who wrote it, which is all that I'm advocating.

 

[pshun2404]

The final three days are the functionaries that operate these orders. So, the sun, moon and stars (created AFTER plants, oddly enough) are the functionaries of time. Fish and birds inhabit the "waters" (above and below). And finally beasts and mankind both benefit from and groom plants, the sources of food.


I think you are confusing "create" with the giving of material form to those things created (yatzar...to form from Genesis 2)...understanding this grammatical distinction makes it apparent that it make no difference which He created first in the order...for example, when He creates mankind He creates them Male and Female, but when He "forms" them He formed the Male first and then the Female...this is not a contradiction either if one rightly divides these two concepts. Chapter two also suggests He created the plants before He formed them.

Carefully read Genesis 2 which says in verses 4 and 5:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created (bara), in the day that the Lord God made (yatzar) the earth and the heavens,

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth , and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

The plants were created BEFORE they grew in the earth (they required rain which required a Sun for evaporation and so on)

Think about it...when we create something (albeit we need pre-existing materials) does not ideation precede formation? We are made in His image.

Paul

 

[themuzicman]

The final three days are the functionaries that operate these orders. So, the sun, moon and stars (created AFTER plants, oddly enough) are the functionaries of time. Fish and birds inhabit the "waters" (above and below). And finally beasts and mankind both benefit from and groom plants, the sources of food.


I think you are confusing "create" with the giving of material form to those things created (yatzar...to form from Genesis 2)...understanding this grammatical distinction makes it apparent that it make no difference which He created first in the order...for example, when He creates mankind He creates them Male and Female, but when He "forms" them He formed the Male first and then the Female...this is not a contradiction either if one rightly divides these two concepts. Chapter two also suggests He created the plants before He formed them.

Carefully read Genesis 2 which says in verses 4 and 5:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created (bara), in the day that the Lord God made (yatzar) the earth and the heavens,

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth , and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.

The plants were created BEFORE they grew in the earth (they required rain which required a Sun for evaporation and so on)

Think about it...when we create something (albeit we need pre-existing materials) does not ideation precede formation? We are made in His image.

Paul

I think you're making my overall point by objecting to a parenthetical clause. The ideation of creation specifically by giving order out of the void may be what Gen 1 is speaking about, an the actual manifestation of that ideation may not be in view at all.

 

[Calminian]

Good topic.

....I went to a conference a couple of weeks ago on this, and Dr. John Walton did a wonderful talk on the cultural and scientific context that Genesis was written in. More specifically, he spoke about what in the creation story was important to someone from the ancient near east (I'll use ANE for this from here on.)

There's a big problem right off the bat. Genesis pre-dates ANE culture!

This is the mistake I think most old-agers make (IMHO). They assume the Genesis toledoth had their start at Moses' time or later.

Genesis is a compilation of older writings, put together by Moses but not originating with Moses. He was possibly translator, redactor, editor and compiler (definitely the last one).

There are several toledoth statements in Genesis showing the authors to be Adam, Noah, Noah's sons, Shem, Isaac and Jabob. There are other unnamed toledoth, such as in the table of nations and in the initial creation account. The account of Joseph's life doesn't have a toledoth subscript, perhaps because that was not normative in Egyptian writing methods.

Now if Henry Morris and the staff at ICR and AiG are correct, all of Genesis is pre-ANE culture, and even pre-diluvian (antediluvian) in its earliest accounts.

Therefore, applying ANE culture and beliefs is just as problematic as applying modern scientific beliefs to it. In the case of the Genesis accounts, we actually need to look to the text itself and allow it to define its own terms (Expanse, earth, heaven, sea, stars, light, etc.).

When you do that, things really clear up quite nicely.

You can read H Morris' comments on the origins of Genesis here.

Who Wrote Genesis?
Excerpted from Henry M. Morris, the Genesis Record, pp. 25-30

I can give you a ton of other info on the tablet theory if you're interested.

But the bottom line, it's not correct to look at Genesis in light of cultures that developed thousands of years after it was originally written. That would include ANE culture.

Thus, Genesis, while theologically significant, also fits into the same category as the earth being flat and the sun standing still in the sky. They are accurate representations of the ANE thought about these things, but not necessarily scientific as we understand them today.

This of course would be the classic mistake of trying to force Genesis into later ANE culture and modern culture for that matter. When you allow Genesis to define its own terms—heaven, earth, sea—a flat earth understanding is impossible. For earth and sea as defined in Genesis, are separate components of the world, and are never combined into a unit. Earth, (erets) is land and sea (yawm) is always the ocean (gen. 1:10). And it's quite remarkable that the understanding of these terms is consistent all throughout the Bible.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them....

You'll find this distinction consistent in the entire bible in both testaments. Earth is never a land/sea unit in the Bible as it is often understood today (as planet earth). Thus the idea of a disc-shaped planet or a globe for that matter can never be forced into the word erets, so long as we let the Bible define its own terms.

10 And God called the dry land Earth.....

The earth in biblical terms consists of mountains, valleys, and coastlines (ends of the earth). There's nothing flat about it.

 

[Calminian]

BTW, regarding gaps in genealogies.

There are different categories of genealogies in the Bible. Some indeed do have gaps, very purposefully. Other's are in the category of 'chronological genealogies' where the father's age is mentioned at the time of the son's birth. These leave no room for gaps, such as those in Gen. 5 which link Adam to Noah, and those in Gen. 11 which link Shem to Terah. Those along with some other helpful revelations link Adam to Abraham with very little wiggle room.

There really is no way to fit gaps into these kinds of genealogies. Some have tried, but the methodology is unprecedented and almost impossible to justify. They're just too specific.

 

[elopez]

What do you mean Genesis fits in the same category as flat earthism? I would tend to think you mean YEC fits in that category. Well YEC thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, and if you reject YEC would you likewise reject the idea the earth is 'young'? If so, and we can rely on science for the answer, the earth is 4.5 billion years.

I suppose you could say the earth is 'old' and say man was specially created in an instant, though you could also say God used evolution. Especially if we are going by science.

 

[themuzicman]

What do you mean Genesis fits in the same category as flat earthism? I would tend to think you mean YEC fits in that category. Well YEC thinks the earth is 6,000 years old, and if you reject YEC would you likewise reject the idea the earth is 'young'? If so, and we can rely on science for the answer, the earth is 4.5 billion years.

Not necessarily. There are scientists who support both theories.

I suppose you could say the earth is 'old' and say man was specially created in an instant, though you could also say God used evolution. Especially if we are going by science.

Well, let's let the scientist find what they find.

 

[themuzicman]

There's a big problem right off the bat. Genesis pre-dates ANE culture!

Jews believe that Moses wrote the Torah, and there isn't any evidence to suggest that this isn't the case. Indeed, this has been the belief for thousands of years.

This is the mistake I think most old-agers make (IMHO). They assume the Genesis toledoth had their start at Moses' time or later.

That's been the prevailing view for a few thousand years. Not easily dismissed.

Genesis is a compilation of older writings, put together by Moses but not originating with Moses. He was possibly translator, redactor, editor and compiler (definitely the last one).

Except that there isn't any evidence to support such a claim. You aren't still on the JEDP thing are you?

There are several toledoth statements in Genesis showing the authors to be Adam, Noah, Noah's sons, Shem, Isaac and Jabob. There are other unnamed toledoth, such as in the table of nations and in the initial creation account. The account of Joseph's life doesn't have a toledoth subscript, perhaps because that was not normative in Egyptian writing methods.

Again, no evidence that any of these men knew how to write, much less actually wrote.

Now if Henry Morris and the staff and ICR and AiG are correct, all of Genesis is pre-ANE culture, and even pre-diluvian (antediluvian) in its earliest accounts.

Again, a lot of theory here that goes against thousands of years of tradition.

Therefore, applying ANE culture and beliefs is just as problematic as applying modern scientific beliefs to it. In the case of the Genesis accounts, we actually need to look to the text itself and allow it to define its own terms (Expanse, earth, heaven, sea, stars, light, etc.).

Since Moses is the acknowledged writer of the Torah, including Genesis, you're going to have to do more than make this claim.

Furthermore, the evidence when comparing the ANE to Genesis is compelling.

When you do that, things really clear up quite nicely.

Except for that whole "evidence" thing.

You can read H Morris' comments on the origins of Genesis here.

Who Wrote Genesis?
Excerpted from Henry M. Morris, the Genesis Record, pp. 25-30

I can give you a ton of other info on the tablet theory if you're interested.

If it has as little evidence and as much conjecture as your link, don't bother. He's going to need more than his opinion to overcome thousands of years of tradition about the authorship of Genesis.

But the bottom line, it's not correct to look at Genesis in light of cultures that developed thousands of years after it was originally written. That would include ANE culture.

LOL... Again, your "bottom line" from your link is purely conjecture. There's exactly zero evidence to back it up.

Nowhere does anything suggest that "toledoth" indicates a new author. That's purely conjecture.

This of course would be the classic mistake of trying to force Genesis into later ANE culture and modern culture for that matter. When you allow Genesis to define its own terms—heaven, earth, sea—a flat earth understanding is impossible. For earth and sea are separate components of the world, and are never combined into a unit. Earth, (erets) is land and sea (yawm) is always the ocean (gen. 1:10). And it's quite remarkable that the understanding of these terms is consistent all throughout the Bible.

Umm.. Genesis refers to the 'waters above', reflecting a belief that the sky is made of water, where as the 'waters below' refer to the water that the flat dry land is separated from and then rests in. (Gen 1:6-7) That's consistent with an ANE view.

Also, Isaiah 40:22 refers to the earth as a flat disk, not a sphere. (Yes, the Hebrew word there refers to a disk, not a sphere.)

And, of course, we have the story of Joshua, where the sun stands still in the sky. That is also consistent with a flat earth theory.

So, it's pretty clear from the examples of cosmic geography that the Jews believed the earth was flat, and that is pretty consistent throughout the bible.

So, while you may claim that it's impossible, Genesis, Joshua, and Isaiah say differently.

Ex. 20:11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them....

You'll find this distinction consistent in the entire bible in both testaments. Earth is never a land/sea unit in the Bible as it is often understood today. Thus the idea of a disc-shaped planet or a globe for that matter can never be forced into the word erets, so long as we let the Bible define its own terms.

Well, Isaiah says otherwise, and if we let the Bible define its own terms within the culture it is written, creation is about order, not physical manifestation.

10 And God called the dry land Earth.....

The earth in biblical terms consists of mountains, valleys, and coastlines (ends of the earth). There's nothing flat about it.

If you seriously think that mountains and valleys have anything to do with the earth being flat, then you're way out in left field. The size of mountains and valleys are rounding errors in comparison to either the flat or spherical earth theories.

The fact that the coastlines are consider the "ends of the earth" fits easily into the ANE view of the universe, as well, so you're just making my case, here.

 

[Calminian]

....Except that there isn't any evidence to support such a claim. You aren't still on the JEDP thing are you?

LOL! Do you really think Henry Morris, AiG and ICR are proponents of JEDP?

The Tablet theory actually supports Mosaic authorship, and by extension jewish tradition, and refutes JEPD.

I suggest you do a little research and at least learn the difference between the Tablet Theory and JEPD. Henry Morris' excerpts would be a great place to start.

I'm realizing you may not be aware of who Henry Morris is. He's pretty much the father of the modern YEC movement. You can trust me that he's a believer in Mosaic authorship.

That pretty much takes care of all your appeals to jewish tradition. That's one place we're both going to agree.

Again, no evidence that any of these men knew how to write, much less actually wrote.

Well, now you're supporting JEPD.

Actually archeology has turned up a ton of evidence that writing existed prior to Moses and even prior to Abraham. Prior to the 1900's JEPD theorists believed that writing didn't exist past 1000 BC. They've since dropped that theory as thousands of clay tablets have been discovered dating past 3000 BC. And hundreds of those have some very interesting flood legends on them.

Umm.. Genesis refers to the 'waters above', reflecting a belief that the sky is made of water, where as the 'waters below' refer to the water that the flat dry land is separated from and then rests in. (Gen 1:6-7) That's consistent with an ANE view.

Not at all. You're confusing the 'waters above' with the sea. Problem is, the sea wasn't created until the next day after God divided the waters. Whatever these waters were, they were not anything like seawater. The land was also made out of these waters, which Peter confirms.

Again you're trying to cram Genesis into ANE culture, rather than just letting Genesis speak and define it's own terms.

Also, Isaiah 40:22 refers to the earth as a flat disk, not a sphere. (Yes, the Hebrew word there refers to a disk, not a sphere.)

Actually that' passage is not describing earth at all. I take a little different view of this passage than most creationists. Earth, according to Genesis is the dry land. With that premise, that dome described in Is. 40:22 actually speaking of the visible sky that domes around us. God sits above that looking down on us. Even one living in ANE times would be able to get that one.

Other creationist will have different views on that, but I'm pretty certain I'm right on that one.

The fact that the coastlines are consider the "ends of the earth" fits easily into the ANE view of the universe, as well, so you're just making my case, here.

If coastlines are the 'ends of the earth' then you're definition of earth (erets) cannot stand.

You see, I'm suggesting you try a presuppositional approach to the Bible. Listen to it. Let it speak. Then see if its claims bear out the evidence. If Genesis is a real historical narrative, and there really was a flood, then the accounts in Genesis must have been pre-ANE. That's seems a very reasonable premise to build on.

But actually, now I'm curious myself as to what the ancient jews believed about the method by which Moses received Genesis. Obviously he received the Law via dictation, and instructions about the tabernacle, but certainly he didn't receive the narratives of his life via dictation. That would be quite silly as he was there to record them himself, except the narratives written after his death. But do the jews really believe he received the narratives of Genesis via dictation? I'd like to see some proof of that, since that's your view. I know there's some early christians the speculated about that, but I'm not familiar with any jewish tradition per se. Do you have anything to back that up?

 

[Calminian]

BTW, below are some really good reads on the Tablet Theory. The last one is actually Wiseman's book.

The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship
True Origin
Curt Sewell © 1998-2001 by Curt Sewell

CreationWiki: Tablet theory

Did Moses Write Genesis?
Answers in Genesis
by Dr. Terry Mortenson and Bodie Hodge AiG–U.S. June 28, 2011

Who Wrote Genesis? Are the Toledoth Colophons?
Creation Ministries International
by Charles V Taylor, M.A., Ph.D., PGCE, LRAM, FIL, Cert. Theol.

The First Book of Moses and The 'Toledoth' of Genesis
By Damien F. Mackey

Tracing the Hand of Moses in Genesis
By Damien F. Mackeys

Who Wrote Genesis?
Northwest Creation Network
Excerpted from Henry M. Morris, the Genesis Record, pp. 25-30

Who Wrote Genesis?
A Third Theory
by Paul A. Hughes

New Discoveries in Babylonia About Genesis (pdf)
By Air Commodor E P. J. Wiseman, C.B.E.​

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

I find that the Bible and science correspond beautifully. Science is something we interpret through a framework where we make assumptions so my first assumption is that God created as He said in Genesis chapter 1.

I don't think people should assume that God "dummed down" the creation narrative to suit the people at the time. If he wanted to tell Moses he used evolution, He could have very well done that.

If God said He did it in a week, I believe that. I'm surpised He didn't do it in a second.

I don't think people should try to separate the creation narrative and say it's not science. It plainly describes the order of creation in six days. We humans have a tendency to think it is too simplistic but God made the Earth for the prime purpose of mankind and if He made it for us, it seems a bit redundant to wait billions of years before evolving us ...

Calling Genesis nonsense like a flat earth or sun standing still is a lame excuse for rejecting it for man-made doctrine. Man's theories change all the time but the Bible is unchanging. The Israelites were very advanced people. They were not unenlightened. The prophet Isaiah, for example, knew the Earth was round in 600-700 BC & Job new that the Earth was suspended in space around 2000-1800 BC.

I think that the Earth is only a couple thousand years old & there's quite a lot of scientific evidence supporting that.

 

[KWCrazy]

I think that the Earth is only a couple thousand years old & there's quite a lot of scientific evidence supporting that.

I agree. However, the evolution proponents deny all of it. Science is very useful in exploring the world around us and in coming up with cures for diseases. Despite the lies of evolutionists, no theory of origins has any bearing on the biological processes we observe today.

 

[Calminian]

I find that the Bible and science correspond beautifully. Science is something we interpret through a framework where we make assumptions so my first assumption is that God created as He said in Genesis chapter 1.

I don't think people should assume that God "dummed down" the creation narrative to suit the people at the time. If he wanted to tell Moses he used evolution, He could have very well done that.

If God said He did it in a week, I believe that. I'm surpised He didn't do it in a second.

I don't think people should try to separate the creation narrative and say it's not science. It plainly describes the order of creation in six days. We humans have a tendency to think it is too simplistic but God made the Earth for the prime purpose of mankind and if He made it for us, it seems a bit redundant to wait billions of years before evolving us ...

These are very good points. I think I've come to the understanding that the church's lack of faith in Genesis is just that—a crisis of faith. Abraham was such a good model for us. He believed some things I never could have. And yet something easy like a 6 day creation and global flood are too hard for the modern church. I think they're missing out on a tremendous blessing.

 

[KWCrazy]

These are very good points. I think I've come to the understanding that the church's lack of faith in Genesis is just that—a crisis of faith. Abraham was such a good model for us. He believed some things I never could have. And yet something easy like a 6 day creation and global flood are too hard for the modern church. I think they're missing out on a tremendous blessing.

I think it's out of fear that they never address the subject. If they come out in favor of the Bible, they get classified as young earth/ flat earth geocentrists. I don't ever remember creation being talked about much in church. Maybe they thought that teaching such Biblical truths would cause their membership to fall away. Perhaps it would. Many Christians seem to want to re-make God in THEIR image.

 

[Calminian]

I think it's out of fear that they never address the subject. If they come out in favor of the Bible, they get classified as young earth/ flat earth geocentrists. I don't ever remember creation being talked about much in church. Maybe they thought that teaching such Biblical truths would cause their membership to fall away. Perhaps it would. Many Christians seem to want to re-make God in THEIR image.

Definitely has to be some of those factors at work. Abraham had some serious reasons to doubt, and much more to lose (theoretically).

Wonder what would happen if the church one day as a whole decided to trust Genesis.

 

[elopez]

Not necessarily. There are scientists who support both theories.

Yet I thought the YEC view is right there with flat earth? That would make YEC science no science at all. In fact YEC is often refereed to as 'pseudo science' or even more commonly 'junk science.'

At the very least YEC science is vastly different from other science that supports a much older earth, universe, etc.

Well, let's let the scientist find what they find.

But we're open to it, right? I mean why not since Genesis is not literal.

 

[themuzicman]

LOL! Do you really think Henry Morris, AiG and ICR are proponents of JEDP?

Don't know much about them, but if they're like other things I've seen/heard from AiG, they'll support whatever they think gives them an answer.

The Tablet theory actually supports Mosaic authorship, and by extension jewish tradition, and refutes JEPD.

I suggest you do a little research and at least learn the difference between the Tablet Theory and JEPD. Henry Morris' excerpts would be a great place to start.

I'll look at it.

I'm realizing you may not be aware of who Henry Morris is. He's pretty much the father of the modern YEC movement. You can trust me that he's a believer in Mosaic authorship.

Ah, well that explains why I haven't heard of him.

Well, now you're supporting JEPD.

That has nothing to do with JEPD.

Actually archeology has turned up a ton of evidence that writing existed prior to Moses and even prior to Abraham. Prior to the 1900's JEPD theorists believed that writing didn't exist past 1000 BC. They've since dropped that theory as thousands of clay tablets have been discovered dating past 3000 BC. And hundreds of those have some very interesting flood legends on them.

But no evidence that anyone in Scripture wrote them. I do think that Moses penned the Torah (said this before, which is why your comment about JEPD is silly), as has been believed by the church for a few thousand years.

But you're playing word games with Moses being the author of Genesis. A compiler isn't an author.

Not at all. You're confusing the 'waters above' with the sea. Problem is, the sea wasn't created until the next day after God divided the waters. Whatever these waters were, they were not anything like seawater. The land was also made out of these waters, which Peter confirms.

That's just funny. The "waters above" are a sea that isn't created yet. That makes zero sense.

OTOH, the idea that the "waters above" are the source of RAIN makes perfect sense. And that's exactly what "the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse."

So, at this point, we have waters below and waters above.

And, in case you missed it, the seas weren't created on day 2.

9 And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas.

So, what we see is that the land was under the water, and God caused the water to recede so the land could appear. This is very consistent with the ANE idea that the sky is water and the earth is a flat disk that sits in water.

It certainly ISN'T consistent with your claim that the seas were "created." on day 2.

Again you're trying to cram Genesis into ANE culture, rather than just letting Genesis speak and define it's own terms.

Well, given that you just said that seas were created on day 2, when the text says otherwise, I'd say you have a bigger problem than I do in letting Genesis speak and define its own terms.

Actually that' passage is not describing earth at all. I take a little different view of this passage than most creationists. Earth, according to Genesis is the dry land. With that premise, that dome described in Is. 40:22 actually speaking of the visible sky that domes around us. God sits above that looking down on us. Even one living in ANE times would be able to get that one.

Except that the word in Hebrew refers to a "disk" not a "dome." So, no one in the ANE would take this as you have, as no one in the ANE though of the "dome" in the sky as a disk.

Other creationist will have different views on that, but I'm pretty certain I'm right on that one.



If coastlines are the 'ends of the earth' then you're definition of earth (erets) cannot stand.

Sure it can. You've simply poured more into the meaning of that word that is really there.

You see, I'm suggesting you try a presuppositional approach to the Bible. Listen to it. Let it speak.

I would suggest that you do the same, but that you set aside your adherence to 7 day psychical manifestation creationism first, and then allow the beliefs of the author and the audience inform you as how to read text, rather than letting your modern mind ask the questions and try to find the answers.

Then see if its claims bear out the evidence. If Genesis is a real historical narrative, and there really was a flood, then the accounts in Genesis must have been pre-ANE. That's seems a very reasonable premise to build on.

Actually, not it's not. The real premise to build upon is to begin with the cultural background of the author and audience and to see the text as they do, and read the text as a narrative as they do. None of this denies that a flood happened or that creation happened or that all of this happened pre-ANE. But the author is explaining what happened in an ANE voice with an ANE perspective.

And that's the reasonable premise to build upon.

But actually, now I'm curious myself as to what the ancient jews believed about the method by which Moses received Genesis. Obviously he received the Law via dictation, and instructions about the tabernacle, but certainly he didn't receive the narratives of his life via dictation. That would be quite silly as he was there to record them himself, except the narratives written after his death. But do the jews really believe he received the narratives of Genesis via dictation? I'd like to see some proof of that, since that's your view. I know there's some early christians the speculated about that, but I'm not familiar with any jewish tradition per se. Do you have anything to back that up?

OK, you've descended to the point of constructing a straw man in telling me what my view is. That's a sure indication that you know you're losing the argument.

Have a nice day.

 

[themuzicman]

Yet I thought the YEC view is right there with flat earth?

For those who are trying to prove Genesis using science, yes. For those who are simply doing science and discovering a young earth, no.

That would make YEC science no science at all. In fact YEC is often refereed to as 'pseudo science' or even more commonly 'junk science.

You can call them that if you want to. I prefer to let scientists discover the physical world without agenda. If there are creationists who are simply observing the scientific evidence and concluding that the earth is young, that that's perfectly valid.

Unless, as you claim ALL young earth scientists have the agenda of proving that Genesis 1 is science.

At the very least YEC science is vastly different from other science that supports a much older earth, universe, etc.

Which is fine, if it is doing open minded discovery of the physical world.

But we're open to it, right? I mean why not since Genesis is not literal.

Never said it wasn't literal. Apparently y'all can't stay away from straw men.