Moses and God's Days

[MoreCoffee]

The content of any poem needs to be logically correct.
Give me an example which is not.

So, Gen 1 is logically correct.
If it is, then it could be scientifically correct.

Here's an example, remember that you asked for it ...

"The time has come",
The walrus said,
"to talk of many things
of shoes and ships and sealing wax
of cabbages and kings
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."



Another example is this:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought --
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

 

[BobRyan]

In my bible it does look like poetry.

Are you being poetic??

What you really mean is that it is literal -- but you are saying it poetically using symbolism apparently.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

======================================

ok so much for the scholars in Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class univerities.

Anyone else?

Genesis chapter one appears to be poetry. It looks a lot like a litany. Is it good exegetical practise to treat poetry as if it were plain prose reporting events in history?

ok we have heard from someone else weighing on that point - having the opposite opinion apparently.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

I know better than any other here on Earth what I "really mean" and I have stated it in clear English words so please do not make games out of a serious discussion. The truth is that Genesis chapter one has the form of a litany and appears to be poetry intended for recitation. Perhaps its source is oral recitations of the story of creation handed down from generation to generation for many generations before it was put down in writing.

 

[BobRyan]

The Holy Spirit knows better than anyone on Earth what He really means as the author of scripture. So when He describes that 7 day week in Gen 1:2-2:3 and then summarizes it in legal code as "six days YOU shall labor...For in SIX Days the LORD Made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them and rested the 7th day" Ex 20:8-11 HE is providing legal code , literal, rock-solid proof of what HE means.

What is interesting -- is that even the vast majority of Hebrew and OT scholars admit to this "literal historic account" style of writing in Gen 1:-11 as we just saw here. #23

All of it due to "the kind of literature that it is"

 

[Willtor]

It's poetry.

Whether it's literal is a related, but not entirely dependent question. There is, after all, more-or-less literal poetry, just as there is figurative prose.

But it's poetry.

 

[Papias]

Willtor wrote:

It's poetry.

Whether it's literal is a related, but not entirely dependent question. There is, after all, more-or-less literal poetry, just as there is figurative prose.

But it's poetry.

Right. It's been widely recognized as such for a long time, by many different scholars.

The many poetic elements have been pointed out by Protestant, Catholic and Jewish scholars. Just a few include:

G. d'Eichthal, a Catholic, first undertook in his "Texte prim. du premier recit de la Creation" (1875) to show that Genesis, i, was a poem. The same contention was urged by Bishop Clifford ("Dublin Review", 1882), and C. A. Briggs ventures on resolving this narrative into a five-tone measure.
From: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Hebrew Poetry of the Old Testament

Protestants Bruce Waltke and Robert Alter have pointed out poetic elements as well. For instance, Bruce Waltke, in his book "Genesis", gives his view of whether Genesis chaps 1, 2 and 3 are myth, poetry, science or history by saying they are "all of the above".

Reading Gen 1 shows clearly parallel structure (1-3 parallels 4-6), another poetic element. Here is a Jewish source that says that "It is now generally conceded that parallelism is the fundamental law, not only of the poetical, but even of the rhetorical and therefore of higher style in general in the Old Testament. " PARALLELISM IN HEBREW POETRY - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Also - Bob, are you again re-pasting that? After Ebia showed it to be a likely quote mine in post #862 here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7849499-87/ ?
In Christ - Papias

 

[MoreCoffee]

Let's return to the original post's matter. Are God's days ages rather than days of twenty four hours?

Since genesis chapter one is poetry and its refrain "and there was evening and there was morning" may not be relied upon as proof of twenty four hour days being the ruling principle for interpreting the six days of creation.

 

[BobRyan]

Since well all know that Genesis 1 is not poetry - why pretend that it is?

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

======================================

 

[BobRyan]

It's poetry.

Whether it's literal is a related, but not entirely dependent question. There is, after all, more-or-less literal poetry, just as there is figurative prose.

But it's poetry.

Put simply - it is written as a historic account in Gen 1-2 and is included in legal code in Ex 20:11

A point about the "kind of literature that it is" so obvious that pretty much all the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities know enough not take seriously the wild speculation that the text is symbolic or allegory or ...

 

[Calminian]

I know better than any other here on Earth what I "really mean" .......

Yes, and this is exactly what God is trying to say to you. He has stated it in clear words. Please stop the game playing.

Perhaps its source is oral recitations of the story of creation handed down from generation to generation for many generations before it was put down in writing.

Apparently it's a truth you absolutely refuse to explain. When you decide to make the case, please let us know.

Regarding the sources of Genesis, they may actually be embedded inside the text itself in toledoth phrases found throughout. "This is the book of the accounts of Adam," for instance in Gen. 5:1. These phrases in Genesis occur 12 times (these are the generations of) and of the 12, 10 have names attached to them. Adam, Noah, Shem, Ham Japheth, Terah, Isaac and Jacob are among them. Many believe these were the authors that originally recorded the stories now found in Genesis. Moses was the author of Genesis, but was not contemporary to the events. He either got them from God directly, or from preexisting documents, possibly from the authors listed above.

Here's a good article on the subject. The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship

Also: The Origins of Genesis: Solving the Toledoth Mystery

But there is no evidence at all that Genesis 1 is poetry. It doesn't resemble any poetry we see in scripture. Moses took it literally stating that God created the world heavens earth sea and all in them in six work week days. Jesus took it literally, stating that Adam and Eve were made from the beginning of creation. Why should we disagree with them? Why force the poetry angle?

The only answer is man's incessant desire to be in line with the science of his generation.

 

[Progguy]

moses didn't write psalm 90 nor did he write genesis 1

 

[juvenissun]

Here's an example, remember that you asked for it ...

"The time has come",
The walrus said,
"to talk of many things
of shoes and ships and sealing wax
of cabbages and kings
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

What does this "poem" try to say? I don't see a meaning of it. It is just a bunch of words. Is that what you called a poem?
Every single poem in the Bible has some (logical) meanings.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Regarding the sources of Genesis, they may ..... The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship

Oh boy, Cal brings out the Wiseman Hypothesis again. Cal, practically no actual Bible scholars see any truth in the Wiseman hypothesis today, and even in its whole history, only a handful of scholars ever took it seriously.

But there is no evidence at all that Genesis 1 is poetry. It doesn't resemble any poetry we see in scripture.

It's not only poetry, but as I just pointed out a few posts ago, when you denied it was poetry, that many, perhaps most, Biblical scholars see it as poetry - listing resources from Catholic, Protestant and Jewish Biblical scholars showing that it's poetry.

Moses took it literally stating that God created the world heavens earth sea and all in them in six work week days. Jesus took it literally, stating that Adam and Eve were made from the beginning of creation. Why should we disagree with them? Why force the poetry angle?

None of them say it is literal. Just as I might refer to a non-literal story, so can anyone else, including Moses or Jesus. If someone says to you to "be a good Samaritan", they aren't saying that they think the parable is literal history - we all know it's a parable.

The only answer is man's incessant desire to be in line with the science of his generation.

People have recognized that Genesis is non-literal for a long time, including Augustine and Origen hundreds of years ago. Being that the internal structure shows that it's poetry, perhaps the only reason one denies scripture to claim that it's not poetry is to be in line with those who put their creationist interpretation ahead of scripture itself?

In Christ-

Papias

P. S. I can see that Bob Ryan reacted to my pointing out that his repeatedly posted quote seems to be a quote mine by reposting the quote instead of actually responding.

 

[BobRyan]

The empty solution of "wishing it way" when confronted by the fact that even the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities know not to take seriously the extreme wild speculation about Genesis 1 and 2 being poetry instead of a historic account - is not the great mystery that some have imagined it to be.

Most of us can see that there is a problem with that wild speculation that goes contrary to the "kind of literature that it is" when it comes to Genesis 1-2.

And yet this is exactly where some of the blind-faith evolution group are camped out.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Willtor]

The empty solution of "wishing it way" when confronted by the fact that even the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities know not to take seriously the extreme wild speculation about Genesis 1 and 2 being poetry instead of a historic account - is not the great mystery that some have imagined it to be.

Most of us can see that there is a problem with that wild speculation that goes contrary to the "kind of literature that it is" when it comes to Genesis 1-2.

And yet this is exactly where some of the blind-faith evolution group are camped out.

in Christ,

Bob

Wait... you have one quote to back up your side... and _that_ quote is quote-mined! And even if it _weren't_ quote mined, he isn't even saying it's non-poetic! How is it that we are attributed blind-faith?

 

[Calminian]

Cal wrote:


Oh boy, Cal brings out the Wiseman Hypothesis again. Cal, practically no actual Bible scholars see any truth in the Wiseman hypothesis today, and even in its whole history, only a handful of scholars ever took it seriously.

I actually take that as a complement to the Wiseman Hypothesis. Very few scholars take Genesis literally in the first place. The tablet theory actually works quite well with a literal reading of Genesis, so I would expect compromising "scholars" to run for the hills at the mention of it. Most would instead cozy up to JEDP and other document hypotheses which deny the inerrancy of the Text.

But virtually all good reputable biblical creationists see promise in it, from AiG, to ICR, to CMI, to the late Henry Morris, etc. But it's no surprise to me that all compromisers don't like it. That of course doesn't prove the theory, in and of itself, but neither does citing its critics prove it wrong. The fact that you dismiss solely based on the testimony of others shows you've never looked into it.

It's not only poetry, but as I just pointed out a few posts ago, when you denied it was poetry, that many, perhaps most, Biblical scholars see it as poetry - listing resources from Catholic, Protestant and Jewish Biblical scholars showing that it's poetry.

I wonder if any of these sources actually state it to be poetry. The bible will often use poetic expressions in narratives, and we see this in the old and new testaments. But this does not mean it is poetry, and certainly does not mean it is not literal. Otherwise, you're now denying the gospels.

None of them say it is literal. Just as I might refer to a non-literal story, so can anyone else, including Moses or Jesus. If someone says to you to "be a good Samaritan", they aren't saying that they think the parable is literal history - we all know it's a parable.

Yes, and real historical events are full if useful parables.

People have recognized that Genesis is non-literal for a long time,.....

Indeed. The snake in the Garden was the very first.

 

[SkyWriting]

People have recognized that Genesis is non-literal for a long time, including Augustine and Origen hundreds of years ago. Being that the internal structure shows that it's poetry, perhaps the only reason one denies scripture to claim that it's not poetry is to be in line with those who put their creationist interpretation ahead of scripture itself?

Poetry does not exclude truth, honor, or legitimate history. A poetic version
of authentic reality is generally not less true, but enhanced. Jesus was rather
picky about authenticity and I'm sure would have trumped your referenced
scholars in all ways especially the "long time ago" advantage that you invented.

 

[BobRyan]

Wait... you have one quote to back up your side... and _that_ quote is quote-mined! And even if it _weren't_ quote mined, he isn't even saying it's non-poetic! How is it that we are attributed blind-faith?

And so 'wishing away' all the Hebrew and OT scholars in all world-class universities is "your solution"??? really??

The very point blind faith theistic evolutionists wanted to camp out on -- taken from them by all the Hebrew and OT Studies professors in all world-class universities.

WOW!

Maybe shoulda thought about a different spot for "camping out".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Willtor]

And so 'wishing away' all the Hebrew and OT scholars in all world-class universities is "your solution"??? really??

The very point blind faith theistic evolutionists wanted to camp out on -- taken from them by all the Hebrew and OT Studies professors in all world-class universities.

WOW!

Maybe shoulda thought about a different spot for "camping out".

in Christ,

Bob

In this very thread, you've seen quotes of people from "world class universities" who say otherwise than you. I think the alternate interpretation of Barr's comment is more likely... unless he's willfully ignorant. Basically, the one quote you have is either absurd or it simply means something more plausible than how it's being used.