• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The ANE perspective on creation & am I fence sitting?

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,680
3,266
Hartford, Connecticut
✟372,089.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Can one affirm both the Mytho-History/cosmic
Temple view and framework hypothesis, or do they conflict in some way?
I don't believe there is a contradiction between the two. Most scholars, including John Walton note in writings that they acknowledge the triad structure of Genesis with days 1-3 relating to ordering the realms, tohu, and days 4-6 filling those realms with their host, bohu.

I would recommend the book "Reading Genesis 1 and 2: An Evangelical Conversation".

This book gives 5 different interpretations of Genesis. 4 out of the 5 are not YEC. So you'll see a lot of crossover commentary between the framework hypothesis and a handful of well studied scholarly opinions. And each scholar shares a perspective and the other 4 critique that perspective, then the book rotates to a different scholar and a different topic of Genesis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Actually, the Earth does go around the Son!
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
25,396
11,982
Space Mountain!
✟1,419,902.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Can one affirm both the Mytho-History/cosmic
Temple view and framework hypothesis, or do they conflict in some way?

I don't see any reason they can't be held in tandem. The main thing for me is to keep in mind that Genesis 1 is primarily prophetic in nature and, as is seen in Mosaic, Deuteronomic Law, was written to differentiate Israel in its theology from that of its neighboring kingdoms. I think that on a literary and anthropological basis, there's room for both of these perspectives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
30,162
13,550
78
✟453,249.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The main thing for me is to keep in mind that Genesis 1 is primarily prophetic in nature and, as is seen in Mosaic, Deuteronomic Law, was written to differentiate Israel in its theology from that of its neighboring kingdoms.
Yes. Exactly so.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
17,084
1,996
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟337,804.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I think its not so much about the specific of how creation happened but that this knowledge is within humans that they should care and create such a story in the first place to explain the world.

Humans don't have to read a book of ancient stories about creation. Its in their DNA and they will create such stories to explain how existence came about.

Thats because its true. As created beings we know this is the case. We see Gods invisible creative powers in the things that have been made.

So naturally all cultures are going to make these stories of creation and the great flood that God sent.

Its more the case of which story is truth. Which one accounts for reality. God declares He is the one true God and creator. It is the Genesis creation story that God has used to reveal to all. Thats all that matters.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Barbarian
Upvote 0

Platte

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,532
267
57
Virginia
✟79,407.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
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.
didactics,

When did the concept of ANE begin? That might help you in your quest.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,680
3,266
Hartford, Connecticut
✟372,089.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
didactics,

When did the concept of ANE begin? That might help you in your quest.
Ancient Near East, or ANE, concepts of cosmology similar to those found in the Bible, date back several thousand years ago, at least to 2500BC but likely much earlier.
 
Upvote 0