Do you dare?

[Diamond72]

But in light of saying the universe has been here since 14,700,000,000 BC, two hundred years isn't going to make that much difference.

One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other. Usher ONLY talks about the last 6,000 years. AT the time they knew nothing about anything before Adam and Eve. It is amazing that Ushers book is as accurate at it is, considering it was written a long time ago.

We mostly use his book for the dates. When was Adam born, when was Noah born, when was Abraham born. When was the flood. He has figured all of that out.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no contradiction.

No argument there.

If people understand science and if they understand the Bible then they know that they agree.

No argument there.

There are still unknowns.

No argument there.

We do not know everything about everything.

No argument there.

 

[AV1611VET]

One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other.

I reconcile the two by saying:

1. physical age of the earth = as old as God willed it
2. existential age of the earth = 6027 years

Thus the earth has two ages: a physical age, and an existential age.

Usher ONLY talks about the last 6,000 years.

That's all he can talk about.

Going back in time, there's nothing past 6027 years.

Nothing.

And from that nothing, God called the universe into existence.

AT the time they knew nothing about anything before Adam and Eve.

Neither do we.

It is amazing that Ushers book is as accurate at it is, considering it was written a long time ago.

Not really.

All you need is a cheap calculator or abacus.

We mostly use his book for the dates.

I do too.

When was Adam born, when was Noah born, when was Abraham born. When was the flood. He has figured all of that out.

Yup.

 

[Derf]

I do, I believe in a literal Bible.

I alo believe in a literal bible. But that doesn't mean everything in the bible is be taken literally. Solomon was not saying his love's hair was literally a flock of goats appearing on Mt Gilead. Nor did she steal her eyes from a dove:
Song of Songs 4:1 KJV — Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks: thy hair is as a flock of goats, that appear from mount Gilead.

@Akita Suggagaki is correct that there are poetic verses in the bible, and we don't take those verses literally, always. Some we might, as in the citation above. The girl Solomon is writing to is "his love". She is "fair" (meaning pleasant to look at, in the author's opinion). She has locks (hair), and there is such a place as "Mount Gilead". The parts that are not to be taken literally would be the ones where the author compares using metaphor, simile, exageration, or other literary devices. Such things help us to detect poetic sections and distinguish them from prose.

They say that Adam lived 930 years because he gave David 70 years.

I guess I don't understand who "they" are or who "he" is.

We are very close to the Kingdom age and the birth right for the kingdom is from David. A perpetual birth right for all the ages. Not only does Jesus have to descend from Adam it is very important the Mary descended from Eve. I read and study the generations in the Bible. Most people skip over them so they do not know what the generations are all about.

And the genealogies do not appear to contain those literary devices that poetry often has.

So that is one way we might know that the events recorded in Genesis are historical, rather than poetic in nature.

Akita, have you ever done a study of the types of words and phrases used in the creation accounts to see if they used poetic literary devices, and if so do those sections mark distinctions between other parts of the same narrative?

 

[Derf]

Based on what do you make your determinations?

 

[Derf]

I reconcile the two by saying:

1. physical age of the earth = as old as God willed it
2. existential age of the earth = 6027 years

Thus the earth has two ages: a physical age, and an existential age.

I don't see how the two ages are different.

That's all he can talk about.

Going back in time, there's nothing past 6027 years.

There is, even if 6027 is the absolute correct number...God made decisions and agreements and had relationships with the Godhead PRIOR to the creation of the earth.
[Jhn 17:24 KJV] Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
[Eph 1:4 KJV] According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
[1Pe 1:20 KJV] Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

If time only began at the foundation of the earth, there would be no "before the foundation of the world".

 

[jamiec]

Would anyone here dare to see the Genesis Adam and Eve "fall" more as a post exilic warning to the surviving Jewish community to obey the religious elders and their teachings (God)? This would mean seeing it less as a literal historical eating forbidden fruit. I know that is impossible for some here. But scholars speculate an a post exilic date. What motives would the authors have and what points trying to make? There is a cause of our suffering? But also, "Listen to us"?

There is no reason at all to take the story in Gen 2-3 as a record of what a man and a woman historically did. It is a theological myth, and an aitiological tale. The myth describes the human condition, for that is how people behave; they do the wrong thing, don't like the consequences, & try to blame others for their own fault. The story is a myth, but psychologically true.

When the story reached its final form, & after how long, & through what stages, is anyone's guess. A post-Exilic date seems as reasonable, and as plausible, as any.

 

[jamiec]

I'd rather say that the Minimalists can assert whatever they want, but even so, whatever conclusions from critical studies involving the Documentary Hypothesis might be pushed by them, their textual "conclusions" don't rule out the possibility of an earlier, "proto" set of teachings from a historical Moses, whether those teachings, including that of Adam and Eve, were in oral or written form. I think of this in an analogous way to how I think that a "Q" document or set of writings, and oral tradition, may have existed prior to the four Gospels we now have.

What's more, I've only seen assertions that perhaps the 1st chapter of Genesis could be a post-exilic product, but I think it begins to become a bit crass and overboard when skeptical scholars posit that much of Genesis is post exilic in its origin of writing, an issue that is still apart from the actual historical contents, or narrative, of Genesis.

In leaning toward the Maximalist position, I tend to think that Moses could very well have existed, that an event approximating the Exodus took place (even of a miraculous sort), that Moses wrote God's commands, and that Moses set out the initial, rudimentary writings that developed into the Torah/Pentateuch that we now have. I don't rule out the possibility that the Torah/Pentateuch we now have is, for the most part, what the original writings of Moses could have been.

But to assume a post-exilic origin for all of this, as well as for much of the rest of the Old Testament, that idea pulls at the seams for me.

STM that it is safe to say that much of the OT, including the entirety of the Pentateuch, is Jewish mythology, and that the characters in it are more or less imaginary. I think it has about as much historical content as the Iliad.

As for later references to it, they are useless, because one does not make mythology into history simply by repeating it. Regardless of who is alluding to these myths. If we want serious history, the Pentateuch is not the place to look. It is deplorable that lessons which should have been learnt 100 years ago, or before, are still shocking novelties - if not worse - to some Christians.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

STM that it is safe to say that much of the OT, including the entirety of the Pentateuch, is Jewish mythology, and that the characters in it are more or less imaginary. I think it has about as much historical content as the Iliad.

We don't know that "much of the OT, including the entirety of the Pentateuch, is Jewish mythology... and that the characters in it are more or less imaginary." And it's best that we don't make it sound like we somehow do know. However, being that I do apply principles of Historiography, Archaeology and Anthropology in working through my own Hermeneutics and Epistemology, I will say that the writing of the O.T. books are, like all historically based writings are, representational narratives of varying qualities.

Sure, the first 11 chapters of the book of Genesis may very well more (or less) be analogous in nature to the Illiad and be what we classify today as "myth," but this claim has to be vetted out page by page, not just categorized wholesale as if any of us can clearly tell without sifting through whatever evidences are available to us. .... I've ALWAYS started out from the position of skepticism and worked up from there, not the other way around as so many do. I don't live in Flatland, jamiec.

As for later references to it, they are useless, because one does not make mythology into history simply by repeating it. Regardless of who is alluding to these myths. If we want serious history, the Pentateuch is not the place to look. It is deplorable that lessons which should have been learnt 100 years ago, or before, are still shocking novelties - if not worse - to some Christians.

I didn't say that if we want whatever "serious history is" that the Pentateuch necessarily provides that. So, don't impute your characterization of what I've said and wash it over as if I indeed have said what you think I've said without qualification. I won't accept that and I'll repudiate* the attempt by anyone else who does the same. So, don't!

What I find vastly deplorable is that people on CF (or from anywhere, really) show up here thinking they're going to be the ONE's to school me on any of this, especially while not providing citations of the sources which delineate the interpretive boundaries of their own theoretical positions. I have mine! What are yours?

Word to the wise: Don't show up here and ploy me with the "lessons should have been learned 100 years ago" garbage without backing it up. No one HAS to swallow all of which Wellhausen began (or of those critical skeptics before him, really) .... and then continue to do so without question. I sure as heck don't----and that's even though I'm an incredulous philosopher who questions everything.


* We all need to be responsible and use the best way of expressing our point of viewpoint we can so as not to be misunderstood in an already polarized society.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

"It"? Do you mean every word literally? No I don’t, nor does anyone. There are such things as metaphors, as poetic or apocalyptic language, etc. But that doesn’t mean we get to pick and choose what is poetic based on our own expectations. For instance, when David fights Goliath, there’s no reason to say that Goliath never existed, at least, there’s no reason from the text to say that. Or that David never existed. Do you think David existed?

Maybe or maybe not. I can accept either possibility.

Was he a king of the combined Israel? Or are those things merely “created narrative” from legends and myths?

Probably a historical character as in the source of many legends.

If the latter, what would drive you to think that David was made up by the post-exilic Jews to make them feel better about their beginnings (even though not fully true)?

To consolidate them and give them identity. But the OP is about creation not David.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Akita, have you ever done a study of the types of words and phrases used in the creation accounts to see if they used poetic literary devices, and if so do those sections mark distinctions between other parts of the same narrative

I am only slightly familiar with other Mesopotamian myths and have not done such a word study.
But elements like six day creation, forbidden fruit and talking snake seem more appropriate for myth than literal history.
At least so it seems to me.

Then Cain, Able, Noah seem so as well. So you can ask me where some actual "history" begins. I think t is extremely difficult to say and to sort out. Perhaps Saul and David...even judges. My focus here was on creation in Genesis which seem quite obviously mythic to me.

I just don't think the historicity is as important as the theological points being made.

 

[Diamond72]

Solomon was not saying his love's hair was literally a flock of goats appearing on Mt Gilead. Nor did she steal her eyes from a dove:

1. Christian traditions have historically viewed the Song of Songs as an allegory. For Jews, it often symbolizes the love between God and Israel, while Christians may see it as representing the love between Christ and the Church.
2. Literal Interpretation: Some scholars and readers interpret the Song of Songs literally, as a collection of love poems celebrating the romantic and physical love between a man and a woman. This view sees the text as a straightforward expression of human love and desire.

 

[Diamond72]

Thus the earth has two ages: a physical age, and an existential age.

The term “existential age” doesn’t appear in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible.

Going back in time, there's nothing past 6027 years.

Nothing.

And from that nothing, God called the universe into existence.

This is what Bishop Ussher said: "Weather time had a beginning or weather it always was, the exact number of years cannot be known." There are a number of quotes like this. I have the actual printed book. Swartzentrover.com | Ussher - The Annals of The World - Part 1 - The Epistle to the Reader

You need to read: “Epistle to the Reader”, a work by Bishop James Ussher that appears before his Annals of the World. The Annals of the World was first published in Latin in 1650 as Annales Veteris Testamenti and in English in 1658.

The “Annals of the World” is a comprehensive historical work by James Ussher, an Irish archbishop and scholar. Published in the mid-17th century, it chronicles world history from the creation according to the Bible up to A.D. 7012. Ussher meticulously researched over 12,000 historical documents and included around 2,000 quotes from the Bible and the Apocrypha

 

[Diamond72]

God called the universe into existence.

Paul tells us in Romans 1:20 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:"

Science has the objective, to study "the things that are made" as Paul tells us to do. People that do not study creation are without excuse.

Science typically focuses on understanding the natural world through observation, experimentation, and evidence. While science doesn’t directly address theological concepts like God’s eternal power and divine nature, it does explore the complexity and beauty of the universe, which some people interpret as evidence of a higher power or intelligent design.

For example, the intricate details of biological systems, the vastness of the cosmos, and the fundamental laws of physics can inspire awe and wonder, leading some to see these as reflections of a divine creator

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

1. physical age of the earth = as old as God willed it
2. existential age of the earth = 6027 years

How would you define "existential age"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am only slightly familiar with other Mesopotamian myths and have not done such a word study.
But elements like six day creation, forbidden fruit and talking snake seem more appropriate for myth than literal history.
At least so it seems to me.

Then Cain, Able, Noah seem so as well. So you can ask me where some actual "history" begins. I think t is extremely difficult to say and to sort out. Perhaps Saul and David...even judges. My focus here was on creation in Genesis which seem quite obviously mythic to me.

I just don't think the historicity is as important as the theological points being made.

One philosophical complication I see in your saying that "the historicity isn't as important as the theological points being made" is that it raises the question: What is it that our Christian beliefs about God are supposed to be either based upon or emergent from?

For many of us, when engaging religion, or the Christian faith specifically, from an existential position, we are sensitive to the notion of whether or not the Bible has any historical substance to it, and if so, at which points and to what extent within its narratives it actually expresses this historic substance. One thing you'll need to keep in mind in this "DARE" that you've offered to everyone in this thread is that many of us don't perceive, or receive (~ ala Blaise Pascal), any psychological palliative encouragement from the Bible if we know that its possible historicity has little or no substance, or even coherency, on the whole.

Now, just to be fair, you're only wanting to focus in on the Biblical narratives about "Creation and the Fall," which to my mind centers upon chapters 1, 2 and 3 of Genesis and a few narrative portions that can also be found in other biblical books like Psalms or Job, or even in Paul's letter to the Romans, etc.

From my perspective, the main question when reading chapters 1 and 2 isn't first "what do these texts mean to me?" No, that's the last question I ask when reading them. My first question, or battery of multiple questions really, is and always has been Historiographical, Historical, Archaeological and Anthropological in nature, and before my mind will allow me to find meaning in these biblical texts, I have to ascertain the answers to at least a few academic questions that would be asked by most professionals who work in the four fields that I just mentioned.

Without getting into those questions so as not to get off on a personal tangent, I simply want to bring to your attention that there are many questions that people have about the Bible, or even here about Creation and The Fall, other than the questions that you feel are personally prominent and of primary importance to the having of "faith." For me, your main question in the OP, "Would anyone here dare to see the Genesis Adam and Eve "fall" more as a post exilic warning to the surviving Jewish community to obey the religious elders and their teachings (God)?" entails the immediate application of the battery of multiple questions mentioned above.

 

[AV1611VET]

The term “existential age” doesn’t appear in the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible.

Neither does "trinity" nor "fetus."

What's your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science has the objective, to study "the things that are made" as Paul tells us to do.

Science should prioritize as well, and learn to give credit where credit is due.

Instead of studying "the things that are made," maybe they should study "the things that God made."

 

[AV1611VET]

How would you define "existential age"?

The amount of time something has been in existence.

 

[Diamond72]

Instead of studying "the things that are made," maybe they should study "the things that God made."

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.