The ANE perspective on creation & am I fence sitting?

didactics said:

For a big part of my life I have been confident in the young earth creation model but one thing that has sort of been a sticking point for me is the ancient near east (ANE) interpretation of creation. It was first pointed out to me in talking about day 2 of creation, the idea that the writer is making reference to a solid firmament. It is further reasoned that the people in those days only knew of a flat earth cosmology, so they were just speaking in terms that everyone would understand. Just because they got something wrong does not mean God’s word is not true. It’s not a science textbook after all. And I have thought about this and wondered if there is any validity to it. The other thing that has really captured my attention is ideas surrounding behemoth and leviathan found in the book of Job. I have been persuaded that these are references to dinosaurs until I saw this video of Ben Stanhope’s critique of Answers in Genesis. He makes a compelling argument that these are descriptions of a mythological creature that symbolizes a false god, such as the followers of the Canaanite deity Baal. The comparison may have been a way of showing people that the true God is omnipotent and has no fear of them. And while I may want to entertain the idea that humans lived alongside dinosaurs, it is a weak argument to suggest Job makes mention of it.

It leads me to ask, if I am wrong on these things, what else am I wrong about? Most people who espouse this view about creation week, saying that it was a polemic to the pagan nations who say their gods took part in creation, tend to also be theistic evolutionists. In a wikipedia article “Firmament” it reads,

But one thing I found interesting is that John Hancock believes the ancients did believe the earth was round.

Maybe the way to reconcile this is to say that philosophers in those days were more split on the issue and many thought it was flat before the time of the Middle Ages.

But if I cede the argument and say it had an ANE context, wouldn’t I be inconsistent to still believe in young earth creationism (YEC)? I have argued before that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and that no contradictions exist, only apparent contradictions. And I do feel in some way it would be a compromise to say that the Bible was wrong about the firmament being a solid dome that separated the heavenly waters above. I understand that the Bible is not a science textbook, but I believe that it has to be right whenever it does talk about science.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you've heard this before, but the Bible is inerrant in what it intends to teach. But not necessarily inerrant in anything and everything written in it, in every context. Sometimes the Bible talks about having many wives. Sometimes it talks about slavery. Sometimes Satan is saying things that may not be true etc.

And so, inerrancy is more about what the text is intended to teach. And if the Bible is not intended to teach science, then it is not necessary to hold the Bible to that kind of standard.

Also, welcome. Glad to have you with us in our journey of growth in God's word.

Genesis 7:11 and 8:2 describe windows opening and closing in the sky. Job 37:18 describes the sky, hard as cast metal. But if you understand that the intent is not to teach about astronomy, then there is nothing to be concerned about. It's just, as you've noted, the historical context of the Bible. Which all historical texts have.

Job 37:18 ESV
[18] Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a cast metal mirror?

Job 37:18 NIV
[18] can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?

Genesis 1:6-7, 20 NRSVUE
[6] And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” [7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.

[20] And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.”

In Hebrew, birds fly not inside the dome/firmament, but rather they fly across the face of the dome of the sky. That is al (across) the peneh (face or surface) of the raqia (the dome).



And there are lots of good scholarly works on this subject. Tremper Longman III has some good books. As does John Walton. And Michael Heiser are probably the most popular. But you can actually find dozens of Bible scholars that have writings on this subject. It's actually very well covered in commentaries. But unfortunately it is controversial among more general Christian audiences. Churches aren't academic in nature, they're more communal, and so sometimes the challenging aspects of scripture are missed in everyday sermons. And this leads to people feeling blindsided or caught off guard when they see it.

Amos 9:6 NASB
[6] The One who builds His upper chambers in the heavens And has founded His vaulted dome over the earth, He who calls for the waters of the sea And pours them out on the face of the earth, The Lord is His name.

Job 22:14 NRSV
[14] Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.’

Exodus 24:10 ESV
[10] and they saw the God of Israel. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.

Something I'd suggest you study is the history of YEC...and by that I don't mean a general understanding of Genesis being literal but the rigid literalism(as well as the verbal plenary theory of inspiration in general) of fundmentalist evangelicals. If you do, what you will find is that it rose as a reactionary movement to a rise in acceptance of evolution in the 19th century rather than being something that was widely held in the church previously.

didactics said:

For a big part of my life I have been confident in the young earth creation model but one thing that has sort of been a sticking point for me is the ancient near east (ANE) interpretation of creation. It was first pointed out to me in talking about day 2 of creation, the idea that the writer is making reference to a solid firmament. It is further reasoned that the people in those days only knew of a flat earth cosmology, so they were just speaking in terms that everyone would understand.

Click to expand...

1. The Bible rejects a flat Earth as well
2. 2 Tim 3:16 says scripture comes from God, and not "the best idea that primitive man could think up"
3. The the dome of our atmoshere us most certainly there and if our orbiting space ships hit it at a shallow angle they bounce off of it. If the angle is too steep the burn up in it.

The Hebrew word for firmament is not "iron dome"

didactics said:

The other thing that has really captured my attention is ideas surrounding behemoth and leviathan found in the book of Job. I have been persuaded that these are references to dinosaurs

Click to expand...

Gen 1 says that land animals were made the same day as humans. I believe it.

didactics said:

But if I cede the argument and say it had an ANE context, wouldn’t I be inconsistent to still believe in young earth creationism (YEC)? I have argued before that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and that no contradictions exist, only apparent contradictions

Click to expand...

agreed

didactics said:

. And I do feel in some way it would be a compromise to say that the Bible was wrong about the firmament being a solid dome that separated the heavenly waters above. I understand that the Bible is not a science textbook, but I believe that it has to be right whenever it does talk about science.

Click to expand...

agreed.

Firmament is where birds fly according to Gen 1

didactics said:

For a big part of my life I have been confident in the young earth creation model but one thing that has sort of been a sticking point for me is the ancient near east (ANE) interpretation of creation. It was first pointed out to me in talking about day 2 of creation, the idea that the writer is making reference to a solid firmament. It is further reasoned that the people in those days only knew of a flat earth cosmology, so they were just speaking in terms that everyone would understand. Just because they got something wrong does not mean God’s word is not true. It’s not a science textbook after all. And I have thought about this and wondered if there is any validity to it. The other thing that has really captured my attention is ideas surrounding behemoth and leviathan found in the book of Job. I have been persuaded that these are references to dinosaurs until I saw this video of Ben Stanhope’s critique of Answers in Genesis. He makes a compelling argument that these are descriptions of a mythological creature that symbolizes a false god, such as the followers of the Canaanite deity Baal. The comparison may have been a way of showing people that the true God is omnipotent and has no fear of them. And while I may want to entertain the idea that humans lived alongside dinosaurs, it is a weak argument to suggest Job makes mention of it.





It leads me to ask, if I am wrong on these things, what else am I wrong about? Most people who espouse this view about creation week, saying that it was a polemic to the pagan nations who say their gods took part in creation, tend to also be theistic evolutionists. In a wikipedia article “Firmament” it reads,

But one thing I found interesting is that John Hancock believes the ancients did believe the earth was round.

Maybe the way to reconcile this is to say that philosophers in those days were more split on the issue and many thought it was flat before the time of the Middle Ages.





But if I cede the argument and say it had an ANE context, wouldn’t I be inconsistent to still believe in young earth creationism (YEC)? I have argued before that the Bible is inerrant and infallible and that no contradictions exist, only apparent contradictions. And I do feel in some way it would be a compromise to say that the Bible was wrong about the firmament being a solid dome that separated the heavenly waters above. I understand that the Bible is not a science textbook, but I believe that it has to be right whenever it does talk about science.

Click to expand...

Don't try to force-fit the array of biblical literature into a Modern paradigm. Each book of the Bible was written not only by different people, but by people who lived during different ancient eras as well. We can't stuff ancient literature into a 21st century scientific box and expect it to reflect today's Cosmology.

In other words, I accept that the biblical writings are a product of Late Bronze Age and Iron Age paradigms. Moses probably did think the 'world' was fairly young, but even if that's the case, we have to do the hard work of examining those written works in light or their own times and do so with academic rigor. If we do this, we can take the biblical writings as they were intended to be: prophetic utterances, not modern scientific descriptions of the world. If we fail to recognize this, then the introduction of worries over alleged Slippery Slopes begin to creep in like snakes in the dark. But, there's no need to fall for that fallacy...................................................

So yeah, there is an A.N.E. background out of which the biblical writings have to be considered. @Job 33:6 has already referenced some things in his post above for you to engage with for further thought.