Moses and God's Days

[BobRyan]

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.

None of them Hebrew or OT scholars from Vanderbilt - or Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge... the world-class group that Barr was talking about. All of the compromised group have an "agenda" to try and shoehorn Darwinism into Genesis.

None of the guys in Barr's list have that as their starting agenda.

I guess we all knew that to start with.

And so the not-too-surprising result?

===========
[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.
==========

The compromised by-faith-alone evolutionist position trying to eisegete room for blind-faith-evolutionism into Genesis, choose to make their stand strictly on "the kind of literature that Genesis is" and in so doing they place their POV squarely at odd with the professors of world-class universities that know a thing or two about 'the KIND of literature" that is found in the Hebrew text of Genesis.

So will not just be glaringly obvious to bible believing Christians - but also to these professors in even the most disconnected realm of academia who look at it purely from the standpoint of "literature".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Willtor]

None of them Hebrew or OT scholars from Vanderbilt - or Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge... the world-class group that Barr was talking about. All of the compromised group have an "agenda" to try and shoehorn Darwinism into Genesis.

I picked out Bruce Waltke at random to see where he was. From his Wikipedia article:

---

Bruce K. Waltke (born in 1930) is a Reformed evangelical professor of Old Testament and Hebrew. He has held professorships in the Old Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, and currently teaches at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

---

Basically all of these schools are household names. If Barr is saying what you think he's saying, he's talking nonsense. I suspect he isn't saying what you think he's saying.

None of the guys in Barr's list have that as their starting agenda.

Barr doesn't have a list. Forget about agenda, though, for a moment. It's obvious that Barr means something other than what you think he means, or that he's wrong.

I guess we all knew that to start with.

And so the not-too-surprising result?

===========
[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.
==========

The compromised by-faith-alone evolutionist position trying to eisegete room for blind-faith-evolutionism into Genesis, choose to make their stand strictly on "the kind of literature that Genesis is" and in so doing they place their POV squarely at odd with the professors of world-class universities that know a thing or two about 'the KIND of literature" that is found in the Hebrew text of Genesis.

So will not just be glaringly obvious to bible believing Christians - but also to these professors in even the most disconnected realm of academia who look at it purely from the standpoint of "literature".

in Christ,

Bob

Forget about evolution. The topic has gone to the form of literature of the Genesis creation account. It's a poem.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by Willtor

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.​

None of them Hebrew or OT scholars from Vanderbilt - or Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge... the world-class group that Barr was talking about. All of the compromised group have an "agenda" to try and shoehorn Darwinism into Genesis.

None of the guys in Barr's list have that as their starting agenda.

I guess we all knew that to start with.

And so the not-too-surprising result?

===========
[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.
==========

The compromised by-faith-alone evolutionist position trying to eisegete room for blind-faith-evolutionism into Genesis, choose to make their stand strictly on "the kind of literature that Genesis is" and in so doing they place their POV squarely at odd with the professors of world-class universities that know a thing or two about 'the KIND of literature" that is found in the Hebrew text of Genesis.

So will not just be glaringly obvious to bible believing Christians - but also to these professors in even the most disconnected realm of academia who look at it purely from the standpoint of "literature".

in Christ,

Bob

I picked out Bruce Waltke at random to see where he was. From his Wikipedia article:

---

Bruce K. Waltke (born in 1930) is a Reformed evangelical professor of Old Testament and Hebrew. He has held professorships in the Old Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, and currently teaches at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Then we are in agreement -- I said

None of them Hebrew or OT scholars from Vanderbilt - or Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge... the world-class group that Barr was talking about. All of the compromised group have an "agenda" to try and shoehorn Darwinism into Genesis.

None of the guys in Barr's list have that as their starting agenda.

Your reference to evangelical teachers is ok - but not in the class that Barr points to - and your list is slanted toward theistic evolutionism.

If Barr is saying what you think he's saying, he's talking nonsense. I suspect he isn't saying what you think he's saying.

Because his words are poetry and not to be taken literally at face value? Or because the english he is using is just wayy too difficult to get the first time or two reading it?

What is your thinking on that point??

Forget about evolution. The topic has gone to the form of literature of the Genesis creation account. It's a poem.

Not a poem - according to Barr and the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities.

And blind faith evolutionism is precisely the context - because in the special self-conflected case of theistic evolutionism it has to oppose the very best scholarship when it comes to "the kind of literature that Genesis is" - as well as Bible believing Christians willing to admit to "the obvious".


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Willtor]

Then we are in agreement -- I said

No. Believe it or not, there are more than 6 world class universities.

But let's suppose Barr's list is identical to the 6 universities you cite. So... you think there is nobody at Harvard who thinks the creation account is poetry? If I find one person, you will give up the Barr quote?

Your reference to evangelical teachers is ok - but not in the class that Barr points to - and your list is slanted toward theistic evolutionism.

Whether the list is slanted towards TE is entirely irrelevant. The list fundamentally undermines your reading of Barr (or undermines Barr).

Because his words are poetry and not to be taken literally at face value? Or because the english he is using is just wayy too difficult to get the first time or two reading it?

What is your thinking on that point??

Nope.

It looks like he's saying that people who take the days to represent longer periods of time are not backed up by scholarship. That's about as plain a reading as you can get. The question of poetry and prose is not something he addresses.

I appreciate that this quote is all you have, so you're reluctant to give it up. But you're shoehorning the fullness of your own thinking into it.

Not a poem - according to Barr and the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities.

And blind faith evolutionism is precisely the context - because in the special self-conflected case of theistic evolutionism it has to oppose the very best scholarship when it comes to "the kind of literature that Genesis is" - as well as Bible believing Christians willing to admit to "the obvious".


in Christ,

Bob

Again with the evolution? I think the current popular literal reading of Genesis has more to do with evolution (or, rather, opposition to it) than it has to do with Genesis, itself.

 

[Progguy]

It's a poem.

it isn't a poem, but it is 'elevated prose' (wenham)

 

[Percivale]

it isn't a poem, but it is 'elevated prose' (wenham)

I agree, it has similarities to and differences from both normal poetry and normal prose. Is that Story as Torah you're quoting? I like that book.

 

[Progguy]

no, his commentary on genesis

 

[AV1611VET]

It seems significant to me that in the one Psalm written by Moses, the traditional author of Genesis, he writes that a thousand years are like yesterday or like a watch in the night to God. Genesis one is the only passage where God is the only one acting, so it seems reasonable to me that Moses might have been using the word 'day' in that passage to refer to God's perspective: thousands of years passed, but that time was like a day to God. And science clearly confirms that reading of the passage.

How then did trees (created on day three) exist for a thousand years without the sun (created on day four)?

 

[SkyWriting]

The topic has gone to the form of literature of the Genesis creation account. It's a poem.

Rap,hip hop, and most music is expressed in poetic form.
That doesn't make it less real or historic.

 

[Willtor]

Rap,hip hop, and most music is expressed in poetic form.
That doesn't make it less real or historic.

THANK YOU! THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING!

Why is there such fight on something that is so clear and obvious as the form of expression? We are not, here, on different "teams." This isn't a game where when someone on "the other team" takes one position, you must necessarily take the opposition. This isn't the U.S. Congress. Why, then, the posturing?!

 

[BobRyan]

How then did trees (created on day three) exist for a thousand years without the sun (created on day four)?

More like 500 million years I think

 

[BobRyan]

And the point that wrenching Genesis 1-11 to find evolutionism agendas is an abuse of the text.

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

Originally Posted by Willtor

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.​

None of them Hebrew or OT scholars from Vanderbilt - or Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge... the world-class group that Barr was talking about. All of the compromised group have an "agenda" to try and shoehorn Darwinism into Genesis.

None of the guys in Barr's list have that as their starting agenda.

I guess we all knew that to start with.

And so the not-too-surprising result?

===========
[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.
==========

The compromised by-faith-alone evolutionist position trying to eisegete room for blind-faith-evolutionism into Genesis, choose to make their stand strictly on "the kind of literature that Genesis is" and in so doing they place their POV squarely at odd with the professors of world-class universities that know a thing or two about 'the KIND of literature" that is found in the Hebrew text of Genesis.

So will not just be glaringly obvious to bible believing Christians - but also to these professors in even the most disconnected realm of academia who look at it purely from the standpoint of "literature".

in Christ,

Bob

I picked out Bruce Waltke at random to see where he was. From his Wikipedia article:

---

Bruce K. Waltke (born in 1930) is a Reformed evangelical professor of Old Testament and Hebrew. He has held professorships in the Old Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, Regent College in Vancouver, British Columbia, Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, and currently teaches at Knox Theological Seminary in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Then we are in agreement -- I said

None of them Hebrew or OT scholars from Vanderbilt - or Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge... the world-class group that Barr was talking about. All of the compromised group have an "agenda" to try and shoehorn Darwinism into Genesis.

None of the guys in Barr's list have that as their starting agenda.

Your reference to evangelical teachers is ok - but not in the class that Barr points to - and your list is slanted toward theistic evolutionism.

If Barr is saying what you think he's saying, he's talking nonsense. I suspect he isn't saying what you think he's saying.

Because his words are poetry and not to be taken literally at face value? Or because the english he is using is just wayy too difficult to get the first time or two reading it?

What is your thinking on that point??

Forget about evolution. The topic has gone to the form of literature of the Genesis creation account. It's a poem.

Not a poem - according to Barr and the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities.

And blind faith evolutionism is precisely the context - because in the special self-conflected case of theistic evolutionism it has to oppose the very best scholarship when it comes to "the kind of literature that Genesis is" - as well as Bible believing Christians willing to admit to "the obvious".


in Christ,

Bob

 

[Willtor]

And the point that wrenching Genesis 1-11 to find evolutionism agendas is an abuse of the text.

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







Then we are in agreement -- I said



Your reference to evangelical teachers is ok - but not in the class that Barr points to - and your list is slanted toward theistic evolutionism.


Because his words are poetry and not to be taken literally at face value? Or because the english he is using is just wayy too difficult to get the first time or two reading it?

What is your thinking on that point??




Not a poem - according to Barr and the professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all world-class universities.

And blind faith evolutionism is precisely the context - because in the special self-conflected case of theistic evolutionism it has to oppose the very best scholarship when it comes to "the kind of literature that Genesis is" - as well as Bible believing Christians willing to admit to "the obvious".


in Christ,

Bob

So... if there's someone from Harvard or Yale or one of the universities on your short-list that thinks it's poetry, then you'll give up your Barr quote?

 

[SkyWriting]

THANK YOU! THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING!

Why is there such fight on something that is so clear and obvious as the form of expression? We are not, here, on different "teams." This isn't a game where when someone on "the other team" takes one position, you must necessarily take the opposition. This isn't the U.S. Congress. Why, then, the posturing?!

Standing up straight is good for the back.
If I agree with you, then why the whining?

 

[Willtor]

Standing up straight is good for the back.
If I agree with you, then why the whining?

No whining. Annoyance. Given the question, though... you should read the whole thread.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Posted by Papias

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.

By that logic, the idea of a flat earth should be supported too.

After all, Very few scholars take Genesis literally in the first place. The flat earth 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, right?

But virtually all good reputable biblical creationists

That's a contradiction in terms......

The fact that you dismiss solely based on the testimony of others shows you've never looked into it.

I have looked into it, and it's based on misreading the text itself.

Originally Posted by Papias View Post

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.

Well, I posted links. How much easier could I have made it for you to read them?

...certainly does not mean it is not literal. Otherwise, you're now denying the gospels.

Simply false. The new testment never says that Genesis has to be interpreted literally. See below.

Originally Posted by Papias View Post

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.

The point is that a story mentioned to illustrate in speech could be either literal history, or simply a well known story. So, your claim that "because it is mentioned in speech means that it must be literal" is simply wrong. We agree on that, right? Or do you think that it means I think humpty dumpty is real when I say, about a broken item, that "I don't think we can put humpty dumpty together again."?

Originally Posted by Papias View Post

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

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

OK, so you agree that Genesis is non-literal when talking about the snake, right? That the snake is a symbol for satan?

Best -

-Papias

 

[SkyWriting]

After all, Very few scholars take Genesis literally in the first place.

Then you should be stunned by how persuasive that handful is.
Show some respect. They have you slammed.


One-Third of Americans Believe the Bible Is Literally True

 

[SkyWriting]

No whining. Annoyance. Given the question, though... you should read the whole thread.

If it can't be re-stated in a sentence or two...then it's pleading a weak case.

 

[Willtor]

If it can't be re-stated in a sentence or two...then it's pleading a weak case.

Well... that's not true. But I'll give you a couple of sentences, anyway.

A cursory look has shown the YECs disputing that the creation account in Genesis is poetry, even though you and I can see that it is. I suspect that they fight this because they can't conceive of poetry being literal -- they see it as the giving of the inch that breaks their case.

 

[SkyWriting]

Well... that's not true. But I'll give you a couple of sentences, anyway.

A cursory look has shown the YECs disputing that the creation account in Genesis is poetry, even though you and I can see that it is. I suspect that they fight this because they can't conceive of poetry being literal -- they see it as the giving of the inch that breaks their case.

The most common complaint is that scripture is all poetry, and not historical.
As your argument only focuses on "poetic" the fight is to be expected.

This quote from ICR covers the true stand:
"Lisle repeatedly appealed to Ross and Rana that God’s Word should be read
in the most straightforward, literal manner possible recognizing that there are
poetic and allegorical passages which need special consideration. "

The Institute for Creation Research