God Told Moses How Creation Happened

[Deamiter]

As Xian Jedi indicates, it just doesn't read like poetry.

Even good prose, like Hemingway or EB White, has excellent metrical structure and is sensitive to sound. But, it ain't poetry.

As we have noted time again, the text determines its purposes, they are narrative. Since Hebrew poetry uses a pattern of concepts, we can make the rather simple comparison in structure.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Bible-Science/6-02Watts.html

Turning first to the form, even a cursory reading of Genesis 1 reveals a great deal of repetition: "and God said" (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, 29), "let there be" (or some form thereof; vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26), "and it was so" (vv. 3, 7, 9, 11, 15, 24, 30), "and God made" (or similar action; vv. 4, 7, 12, 16, 21, 25, 27), "and God saw that ‘x’ was good" (vv. 4, 10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31), some form of naming or blessing (vv. 5, 8, 10, 22, 28), "there was evening and there was morning" (vv. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31), and then a designation of the day as first, second, etc. (vv. 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31; 2.2), with most of these occurring seven times. Usually we associate this kind of repetition with poetry. But we have examples of ancient Hebrew poetry (e.g., Exod 15; Num 23-24; Deut 33; Judg 5), and Genesis 1 is clearly not the same thing. But equally, if not more so, neither is this repetition characteristic of straight narrative, as a quick glance at even Genesis 2 or 1 Samuel will reveal. That modern translators and the vast majority of commentators recognize the poetic character of Genesis 1 is indicated by the printed format used in nearly all modern versions of the Bible.

There are other indications that this text is highly stylized. In ancient writing it is not uncommon to find the opening sentences offering clues to the structure of what follows—something like their version of a table of contents. Genesis 1:2 tells us that the earth was without structure (formless) and empty. With this in mind, it has long been recognized that days 1-3 and 4-6 are correlated with days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6 concerning the same elements of creation:

(emphasis mine)

Really good article by the way if you're interested in a highly-developed interprative framework for the creation stories.

 

[jeffweeder]

Moses compiled Genesis out of historical docs handed down.
creation hymn 1:1 - 2:3

generations of the heaven and earth -2:4-4:26

" of Adam -5:1- 6:8

" of Noah -6:9 - 9:28

" sons of Noah 10:1 - 11:9

" of Shem -11:10- 26

" of Terah -11:27 - 25:11

" of Ismael -25:12-18

" of Isaac -25:19 - 35:29

" of Esau - 36:1-43

" of Jacob - 37:2 - 50:26

11 documents

 

[shernren]

As Xian Jedi indicates, it just doesn't read like poetry.

Even good prose, like Hemingway or EB White, has excellent metrical structure and is sensitive to sound. But, it ain't poetry.

As we have noted time again, the text determines its purposes, they are narrative. Since Hebrew poetry uses a pattern of concepts, we can make the rather simple comparison in structure.

Wander down to the bookstore and go look for the novels section. There you will be drowning in reams of non-literal narrative which neatly refute your assertion that all narrative must be historical. Why can't God write a non-literal narrative (assuming that Genesis 1 is narrative in the first place)? Again, it's highly amusing to watch you tell God how the Bible ought to be written.

 

[HypnoToad]

Wander down to the bookstore and go look for the novels section. There you will be drowning in reams of non-literal narrative which neatly refute your assertion that all narrative must be historical. Why can't God write a non-literal narrative (assuming that Genesis 1 is narrative in the first place)? Again, it's highly amusing to watch you tell God how the Bible ought to be written.

So, people who opt for a historical interpretation often get slammed for viewing it in a "modern historical sense", which people say that type of writing didn't exist then. But you can view it in the sense of a modern novel (also non-existent at that time), and that's alright?

 

[Willtor]

So, people who opt for a historical interpretation often get slammed for viewing it in a "modern historical sense", which people say that type of writing didn't exist then. But you can view it in the sense of a modern novel (also non-existent at that time), and that's alright?

Novels weren't non-existent in the ancient world (even in the ancient Hebraic world). I'd cite the book of Tobit which is thought to be exactly that.

 

[HypnoToad]

Novels weren't non-existent in the ancient world (even in the ancient Hebraic world). I'd cite the book of Tobit which is thought to be exactly that.

Which is how many thousands of years after Genesis?

 

[Willtor]

About 1, I think.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Which is how many thousands of years after Genesis?

Since pieces of it are found with the dead sea scrolls, that would rank it as at least as old as any other large section of the Bible we have.

 

[Willtor]

Since pieces of it are found with the dead sea scrolls, that would rank it as at least as old as any other large section of the Bible we have.

To be fair, I haven't heard of anybody who has dated the compilation of the Pentateuch later than about 1000 BC. With my estimate, I was assuming 1400-1200 BC. If Tobit was written in the second century BC, that's a little more than 1000 years.

 

[gluadys]

To be fair, I haven't heard of anybody who has dated the compilation of the Pentateuch later than about 1000 BC. With my estimate, I was assuming 1400-1200 BC. If Tobit was written in the second century BC, that's a little more than 1000 years.

Actually, the most widely accepted dating for the compilation of the Pentateuch places the final redaction in the 4th century BCE, about the time of the end of the Babylonian exile. Some hold that the reading of the Law referred to in the Book of Ezra may have been the first reading of the Torah as we know it today. Some identify Ezra himself as the final redactor.

Parts of the Torah were compiled earlier, sometime after 722 BCE but before the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar.

The later parts were not written until after this earlier compilation. The earlier parts are generally said to have been written during the era of the two kingdoms.

There may have been earlier writings which did not make it into the Pentateuch as such, but were source documents for those that did.

And, of course, there were oral traditions that went back at least to the time of Moses, and in the case of the Genesis stories, much earlier.

 

[Willtor]

Actually, the most widely accepted dating for the compilation of the Pentateuch places the final redaction in the 4th century BCE, about the time of the end of the Babylonian exile. Some hold that the reading of the Law referred to in the Book of Ezra may have been the first reading of the Torah as we know it today. Some identify Ezra himself as the final redactor.

Parts of the Torah were compiled earlier, sometime after 722 BCE but before the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar.

The later parts were not written until after this earlier compilation. The earlier parts are generally said to have been written during the era of the two kingdoms.

There may have been earlier writings which did not make it into the Pentateuch as such, but were source documents for those that did.

And, of course, there were oral traditions that went back at least to the time of Moses, and in the case of the Genesis stories, much earlier.

News to me. I'll have to research this further. I've only read one book and a few websites on the matter.

At any rate, though, my point is that it isn't so unreasonable to place novels in the ancient Hebraic world.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

To be fair, I haven't heard of anybody who has dated the compilation of the Pentateuch later than about 1000 BC. With my estimate, I was assuming 1400-1200 BC. If Tobit was written in the second century BC, that's a little more than 1000 years.

I know, but the oldest known copies of the books in more or less their current form are the dead sea scroll versions. I know of no earlier forms of the tora that have survived. All other earlier pieces are individual poems and prayers that are stand alone pieces not part of a larger document.

The YEC reject the literary dating of the books by language use because it alone would invalidate their view of the Bible as a single author stand alone book. They have nothing but blind faith in the idea that they cannot be wrong, that they alone are the holders of truth.

I was just trying to point out that the oldest known copies of the Tora are contemporaries with the oldest known copies of the Tobit novel.

 

[Assyrian]

Parables and allegories are some of the oldest literary forms we have in the bible, Gen 49, Deut 32, Judges 9.

 

[busterdog]

Wander down to the bookstore and go look for the novels section. There you will be drowning in reams of non-literal narrative which neatly refute your assertion that all narrative must be historical. Why can't God write a non-literal narrative (assuming that Genesis 1 is narrative in the first place)? Again, it's highly amusing to watch you tell God how the Bible ought to be written.

All your words, not mine.

 

[shernren]

All your words, not mine.

Which of course they are. Your point?

 

[busterdog]

Which of course they are. Your point?

Gen 1-6 doesn't look like any other poetry in which the idiom is not intended as narrative.

You already know what I think, but I will tell you anyway. Its narrative, for the purposes we have discussed time and again.

The idea that meter and poetic form (assuming this exists) could make it not literal is weak at best. Lots of history was recorded in poetic form at various times.

I am reacting to the claim, "its poetry, so it must not be literal." If I have been mistaken about that claim having been made, let me know.

Otherwise, we seem to know where we divide on this issue.

This is a song:

Exd 15:21 And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.

Different method and form.

So, was this just idiom without narrative?

 

[shernren]

Gen 1-6 doesn't look like any other poetry in which the idiom is not intended as narrative.

You already know what I think, but I will tell you anyway. Its narrative, for the purposes we have discussed time and again.

The idea that meter and poetic form (assuming this exists) could make it not literal is weak at best. Lots of history was recorded in poetic form at various times.

I am reacting to the claim, "its poetry, so it must not be literal." If I have been mistaken about that claim having been made, let me know.

Otherwise, we seem to know where we divide on this issue.

This is a song:

Exd 15:21 And Miriam answered them, Sing ye to the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously; the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea.

Different method and form.

So, was this just idiom without narrative?

We have not claimed that poems are always non-historical. We have claimed that Genesis 1 is not prose (regardless of its historicity), and even if it is, that does not prevent it one bit from being non-historical. Non-historical narrative prose abounds throughout the Bible, the best of it coming from Jesus Himself!

 

[gluadys]

The idea that meter and poetic form (assuming this exists) could make it not literal is weak at best. Lots of history was recorded in poetic form at various times.

I am reacting to the claim, "its poetry, so it must not be literal." If I have been mistaken about that claim having been made, let me know.

That's fine. As long as it is also recognized that the opposite claim "It's narrative, therefore it's literal" is just as fallacious.

Poetic and prose forms are used for both myth and history. The same goes for grammatical constructions.

So arguments from grammar and form should not be used by either creationists or TEs when debating the historicity of the text.

 

[busterdog]

That's fine. As long as it is also recognized that the opposite claim "It's narrative, therefore it's literal" is just as fallacious.

Poetic and prose forms are used for both myth and history. The same goes for grammatical constructions.

So arguments from grammar and form should not be used by either creationists or TEs when debating the historicity of the text.

Fair enough.

I would just add that if you reach certain conclusions about what the Word of God is, for example, that it is inerrant, you must conclude that narrative is to be taken literally. But, and I think we are in agreement, the form of narrative does not make the case for inerrancy itself (or its opposite). We reach that conclusion or dismiss it generally upon other grounds. As we look at our particular method of hermeneutics, we should be checking ourselves where we inconsistent in who we apply a given form, such as narrative. I would venture that we agree on this as well.

 

[busterdog]

We have not claimed that poems are always non-historical.

Sorry, I must have seen that elsewhere.