6,000 Years?

[tampasteve]

Well here, you've resolved your own challenge.

"one reading of the same text we can say it means virgin in relation to the Messiah and young woman in relation to King Hezekiah."

In reality, we don't actually have 1 reading of 1 text. We have 2 readings of 1 text. The original Isaiah reading (which may or may not involve a virgin) and Mathews later reading which involves Mary.

Rather than erasing the old testament with the new, the solution is to hold the two in balance, respecting each in its own light.

Another good example of this issue is found in Genesis 1:26. People say that the "Us" is Jesus and the holy Spirit and the father.

But obviously the ancient isrealites and Moses had no idea who Jesus was, so when they wrote and listened to that, that's not what they would have understood.

And interestingly enough, with the tower of Babel, God says "let us go down and confuse their language", but no pastor gets up on stage and ever preaches about Jesus confusing languages of people at Babel.

And further in Isaiah 6, "us" is used in reference to God and his angels and council.


The point is that, there two two different contexts and two different readings. And I'm sure you know this.

But you can't erase the old testament with the new. Rather you must hold them both, in balance with one another. Understanding that the old testament readers never had the full revelation and thus the old testament doesn't actually say those things.

But simultaneously there is another potential assumption at play here. And that is the assumption that Mathew is not merely using the old testament to convey new truths. But that Mathew is making an effort at re-telling the book of Isaiah.

But Mathew need not be saying that Isaiah was intended to be understood that way (a virgin) by its original isrealite audience. Rather he's only speaking to his later audiences about revelations that he has for people of that later time.

Whoa, hard stop. We both 100% agree that the New Testament does not wipe out the Old. I think we agree that the Old Must be read in light of the New.

But we cannot say that Matthew was adding a "new reading" or "re-telling" to the text, that would imply that it was not a prophesy about the salvific Messiah, that Matthew was reading into the text what he though needed to be read into. That it is simply a prophesy about a messiah, of which there were other such as Hezekiah. The two Testaments work together for full revelation, one not above the other in any understanding.

All this to say, the new testament does not overwrite the old testament. If they say conflicting things, the solution is not to delete the old testament in favor of the new.

And for that reason, we cannot replace Genesis, just because John had something else to say.

I would say that we cannot read Gen. as you are saying because the NT implies a ex nihilo creation.

What challenges would an ex materia reading do for something like the gospel? I'd say, it doesn't have any impact at all.

It isn't a salvific issue, so it doesn't challenge the Gospel in that manner, which believing in g YEC perspective does not either.

 

[Job 33:6]

Ok, bringing alma back into it, the prophesy for the Messiah simply says that it must be alma, "a young woman" and not necessarily a virgin, and the other example used for Isaiah 7:14 is often Hezekiah, thereby the claim that Jesus must be "born of a virgin" is pagan...and Jesus isn't the messiah. That's the Jewish claim anyway, but of course nearly every Christian scholar translates it as virgin and the virgin birth is foundational to our faith. In one reading of the same text we can say it means virgin in relation to the Messiah and young woman in relation to King Hezekiah.

The text in Gen 1. is describing the creation of everything, IMO changing the meaning to be anything other than a plain reading and ex nihilo is problematic and leads one to have to question much of the veracity of the entire text.


Different people different traditions. Also we have the Holy Spirit, the largely did not. Also, most did believe in a literal interpretation of the text, some did not of course (just as now), but many - perhaps most even - did. It is not genuine to say that the ancient Israelites did not view Gen. as literal.

Another example I like to reference is Ephesians 4 and Psalm 68. One says that God gives gifts, the other says that God receives gifts.

But the solution isn't to say "well according to Christian tradition, Jesus gave gifts so that's what the psalmist was saying".

Rather the solution is to understand that the context is different and that the two different readings of 1 passage must be both held up, each in their respective original contextual backgrounds.

 

[tampasteve]

Another example I like to reference is Ephesians 4 and Psalm 68. One says that God gives gifts, the other says that God receives gifts.

But the solution isn't to say "well according to Christian tradition, Jesus gave gifts so that's what the psalmist was saying".

Rather the solution is to understand that the context is different and that the two different readings of 1 passage must be both held up, each in their respective original contextual backgrounds.

I wouldn't disagree with that. Again, 7 ways to read a passage and all that.

 

[Job 33:6]

But we cannot say that Matthew was adding a "new reading" or "re-telling" to the text, that would imply that it was not a prophesy about the salvific Messiah,

Why do you think this^?

 

[Job 33:6]

I would say that we cannot read Gen. as you are saying because the NT implies a ex nihilo creation.

I would say that we can, and should. Because if you don't, you risk reading more modern contextual backgrounds and traditions, backwards into the old testament where they historically never were.

And I don't think that this makes new testament prophecy false in any way. New testament prophecy can be new. A "2nd reading" but can still be wholly true, despite not being the original meaning and understanding of the text.

Additionally, there is an assumption here that nee testament authors are attempting to retell Genesis. Which is also something that is quite ambiguous and debatable.

And if you understand that both old and new testaments are equally true, then there is no position in which we can erase or supercede that original ex materia understanding.

You're saying that the new testament in some way is influencing you to read the old testament as ex nihilo. But I would say that, even if you don't want that to be the case, that's what's happening, you're allowing a more modern revelation and context to essentially supercede the original. Rather than viewing these as two distinct things that can both equally be true.

And someone could ask, how can both be true if they say different things? Well, one option is to observe that John never intended to retell Genesis. Their prophecies can be derived from the old testament, but they need not be retelling the same stories.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wouldn't disagree with that. Again, 7 ways to read a passage and all that.

Just for the record, I thought I'd drop my two cents into the pot:

In sum: I think the New Testament authors such as Matthew were not so much seeing OT prophecies as ultra-literal, linear, predictions of exact events affirmed by past prophets. Rather, authors like Matthew were perceiving typological patterns that God cryptically set in place beforehand in Israel's prophetic tradition and by which the NT writers, and us, would recognize God's work in the future via those similar, typological patterns. This tradition was set this why, I think, because 1) God didn't trust Israel on the whole and 2) we see that when Jesus finally showed up in advent, many where questioning via different interpretive measures, "Who is this guy? What does this mean? Is He for real?, etc."

I call this the "Elijah Principle." Going this route of interpretation, I save a lot of hand wringing when reading the texts of the New Testament authors in light of the Old.

 

[Job 33:6]

Why do you think this^?

I mean @tampasteve isn't that the whole point of prophecy, to introduce a new prophetic revelation to something that formerly wasn't there?

Just for the record, I thought I'd drop my two cents into the pot:

In sum: I think the New Testament authors such as Matthew were not so much seeing OT prophecies as ultra-literal, linear, predictions of exact events affirmed by past prophets. Rather, authors like Matthew were perceiving typological patterns that God cryptically set in place beforehand in Israel's prophetic tradtion and by which the NT writers, and us, would recognize God's work in the future via those similar, typological patterns.

I call this the "Elijah Principle." Going this route of interpretation, I save a lot of hand wringing when reading the text of the New Testament authors.

Exactly^.

If we view the NT authors as retelling the OT in, as is worded here, an ultra literal fashion, it leads to all sorts of crazy confusion about the old testament.

I like the example of "let us go down" in relation to Genesis 1:26 "let us make" and the confusing idea that Jesus is descending at Babel to confuse peoples languages.

It's just a mess if the church takes this position to an extreme.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I mean @tampasteve isn't that the whole point of prophecy, to introduce a new prophetic revelation to something that formerly wasn't there?

Exactly^.

If we view the NT authors as retelling the OT in, as is worded here, an ultra literal fashion, it leads to all sorts of crazy confusion about the old testament.

I like the example of "let us go down" in relation to Genesis 1:26 "let us make" and the confusing idea that Jesus is descending at Babel to confuse peoples languages.

It's just a mess if the church takes this position to an extreme.

Right. It becomes quite difficult to line things up and see fulfillment between the OT and the NT if we expect an ultra literal, concretely explicit set of prophecies to take on a 1:1 correspondence.

I call this the "Elijah Principle" as an easy heuristic for myself: because when the "Elijah to come" finally did show up, ..............it turned out he was John the Baptist, a personage who was, shall we say, a bit "less impressive" than what a number of Jewish folks would have been expecting for a fulfillment of Malachi's supposed prediction.

Like you've been insisting, and with which I much agree, a lot of what we read in the OT as prophetic utterance has to be taken in a figurative or typo-logical fashion since the Jewish interpretive heritage, with the Midrash and Talmuds in mind, is reflective of variations of interpretation on expected themes rather than being reflective of modern notions of "push-button accuracy."

If we read things this way, it just meshes better.

 

[tampasteve]

All interesting, gentlemen, and I can see we are all committed to our positions here. I appreciate your time and kindness in working with me, but this is a case where we are not going to see eye to eye at this time. You have given me some to think about and mediate on, to continue researching. I hope that my arguments have had some semblance of insight as well. But, I must leave this be for now as I am about to sign off for the week.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All interesting, gentlemen, and I can see we are all committed to our positions here. I appreciate your time and kindness in working with me, but this is a case where we are not going to see eye to eye at this time. You have given me some to think about and mediate on, to continue researching. I hope that my arguments have had some semblance of insight as well. But, I must leave this be for now as I am about to sign off for the week.

That's all good, TS. Have a great week, brother!

 

[Job 33:6]

All interesting, gentlemen, and I can see we are all committed to our positions here. I appreciate your time and kindness in working with me, but this is a case where we are not going to see eye to eye at this time. You have given me some to think about and mediate on, to continue researching. I hope that my arguments have had some semblance of insight as well. But, I must leave this be for now as I am about to sign off for the week.

Sure. I appreciate your input and I do think that it's a very meaningful topic to process. Thank you for sharing and I'll think about it ideas that you've shared as well!

 

[Job 33:6]

Here is one other alternative as well. God did create ex nihilo, but that's not the story that Genesis is trying to tell. The ex nihilo story being simply untold until the new testament. That's another way to resolve the circumstance that allows for acceptance of both NT and OT positions.

But ultimately, as much of a mental exercise as this all is, none of this, no matter how much effort we put into it, changes the blunt directness of the text:

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

No matter how much we want to wrestle over philosophical ideas of God being eternal and nothing else. No matter how important the natural sciences are to us.

None of it matters. Because at the end of the day, Genesis 1:1, doesn't actually describe a material beginning. No more does "when George began to create a piece of furniture" or "in the beginning when George created furniture" say anything about the beginning of the furniture in any material sense.

There is this deep assumption of ex nihilo philosophy underpinning the text, despite the text never actually suggesting such a thing. Indeed, "the earth was formless" suggests that it was already there. Just as if someone said:

When George began creating his furniture, the furniture was formless and in pieces.

It just doesn't indicate anything about where the furniture came from to begin with. Only that it was there when God began to create it.

Unless someone flat out argues "that Bible translation is wrong". And with that, opens up even more dire issues than the ones we've been discussing.

 

[Job 33:6]

And even if someone did assume ex nihilo creation:

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

This translation would just move us into a position of contradiction in which we would then be trying to understand the 6 days of creation as ex nihilo. Which doesn't make any sense.

Separation of waters from waters. Moving water off of the dry land. The earth sprouting and bringing forth vegetation etc. all present ideas that are not ex nihilo.

And so if someone did assume ex nihilo creation, it would just create a contradiction. Which would force the reader back to verse 1.

And so someone who takes an ex nihilo approach would logically have to conclude that the Bible translation, the dependent clause translation of Genesis 1:1, must be wrong.

If I said "when George began to create a piece of furniture" that in and of itself isn't the creation. That's just a dependent clause and introduction to the book that will eventually tell us about how it was done.

Which means that the 6 days in and of themselves, or 7 days, are of creation. But nobody can really read them as ex nihilo because they describe things moving around. Water being gathered to reveal dry land. Earth sprouting vegetation. That's not ex nihilo.

But if the 6 days aren't ex nihilo, and verse 1:1 is just an introduction, then even if we assumed an ex nihilo creation, Genesis wouldn't actually say that. There isn't anything there that describes such a thing.

And so a YEC would have to basically just scrap, or deny/ignore all dependent clause translations of Genesis. They'd have to reject the NRSV, NRSVue, the CEB, The LEB, the YLT, the NABRE, the NJPS, the BHS etc.

YECs basically have to deny the legitimacy of something like a dozen Bible translations.

How can this be?

 

[setst777]

What you're doing is taking one sentence and finding something that isn't there. What begins at the Passover meal is finished at the cross. Wine that you get at the liquor store is not the blood of Jesus. Jesus tells us that "This is My Body" and "This is My Blood." We are to "Do this" which means the breaking and blessing of the bread, the words of consecration, and distribution to the people. Sadly the meaning has been even more obscured since the three leaders of he reformation came up with their own ideas of what the Eucharist is. The words of Jesus are true:

We participate or share in the body and blood of Lord Jesus by remembering Him and the sacrifice he made on our behalf by breaking bread together and drinking the fruit of the vine.

Matthew 26:29 (WEB) 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine from now on

What is THIS fruit of the vine referring to? THIS fruit of the vine is referring to what Lord Jesus just gave them all to drink in the Lord's Supper. There is nothing here about a third or fourth cup.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine from now on, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

John 6:53-56 Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

This was a hard saying for the Jews because they could not understand the spiritual meaning behind his riddles. The Jews were carnally minded.

The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin, not by drinking his literal blood, but by faith in Christ - following Him into a sanctified life of righteousness and love.

1 John 1:5-7 (WEB) 6 If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and don’t tell the truth. 7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, his Son, cleanses us from all sin.

Our sins are not forgiven and blotted out by drinking his blood, but by repentance and faith in Lord Jesus.

Acts 3:19 (KJV) Repent ye therefore, and be converted [turned], that your sins may be blotted out

Luke 24:46 He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Notice that the Gospel is all about repentance and faith in Lord Jesus to so that our sins may be blotted out, that we may be forgiven and cleansed, and NOT by drinking His blood.

1 Cor 10:16 The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?

I agree that we share in or participate in the blood of Christ by drinking wine at the Lord's Supper. But none of the disciples taught that they were actually drinking the blood of Christ or eating His flesh.

1 Corinthians 10:14-22
14 So then, my dear friends, run away from the worship of false gods! 15 I’m talking to you like you are sensible people. Think about what I’m saying. 16 Isn’t the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Isn’t the loaf of bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17 Since there is one loaf of bread, we who are many are one body, because we all share the one loaf of bread. 18 Look at the people of Israel.

No mention is made the loaf of bread or taking the cup has anything to do with the bread transforming into the flesh of Christ, or that the cup transforms into his blood. That is man-made teaching.

1 Corinthians 11:21-22 (WEB) 21 For in your eating each one takes his own supper first. One is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What, don’t you have houses to eat and to drink in?

Lord Jesus, likewise, never stated that the wine and bread turn into his blood and body.

Matthew 26:27-29 (WEB) 27 He took the cup, gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, “All of you drink it, 28 for this is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the remission of sins. 29 But I tell you that I will not drink of THIS fruit of the vine from now on

The life we have in us by faith in Lord Jesus is the Spirit who dwells in those who believe, not by drinking his blood.

John 4:14 (WEB) Whoever drinks [continuous drinking] of the water that I will give him will never thirst again; Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to Eternal Life.

John 7:37-39 (WEB) 37 On the last and greatest day of the festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice, “Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”

John 6:35 (WEB) Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will not be hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.

John 6:63 (WEB) It is the spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and are life.

 

[Job 33:6]

@tampasteve

I would be curious to hear your thoughts on Hosea 11:1 and Mathew 2:15. The prophecy where Jesus comes out of Egypt.

This is a pretty good example where Mathew reveals a prophecy, and yet the old testament says something completely different than the new. They aren't even remotely similar.

It's a good example of how the old testament can say something, then the new testament can take that exact same passage and use it in a completely different way. A new way, that was never originally thought of or understood in such a way. A "2nd reading".

Which could be thought of similarly to Genesis. Even if we assumed that John or whomever was referencing Genesis, the prophets need not retell the OT story with reference to prophecy. It's perfectly fine if their prophecies say completely different things.

Hosea 11:1 ESV
[1] When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

Matthew 2:15 ESV
[15] and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

The verse originally refers to the nation of Israel, whom God "called out of Egypt" during the Exodus.

Matthew sees Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of Israel's story. Just as Israel was called out of Egypt as God’s "son," Jesus, as God's Son, also emerges from Egypt.

Two completely different meanings.

 

[John Bauer]

I believe the people that [Cain] was afraid of would have been his relatives by birth—brothers, sisters, nephews, etc.

Cain was worried that "whoever finds me will kill me" (Gen 4:14). Notice that he is not talking about his family but rather "whoever" (כּל, kôl). As I understand it, he is not worried about revenge from his family so much as no longer belonging to God's protected community. He is being exiled. He's not worried about staying, he's worried about leaving. So, God reassures him that divine protection will follow him in exile (v. 15).

 

[Job 33:6]

Cain was worried that "whoever finds me will kill me" (Gen 4:14). Notice that he is not talking about his family but rather "whoever" (כּל, kôl). As I understand it, he is not worried about revenge from his family so much as no longer belonging to God's protected community. He is being exiled. He's not worried about staying, he's worried about leaving. So, God reassures him that divine protection will follow him in exile (v. 15).

I've always thought that the family concept just didn't add up. Because at that point in the story, Seth had not yet even been born. Let alone the other sons and daughters mentioned after Seth, later on in chapter 5.


Genesis 4:1-2, 25 ESV
[1] Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.” [2] And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground.
[25] And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.”

Eve express praise to the Lord for giving her a child in place of Abel (suggesting that Seth was born next), and the text additionally just says, "Adam knew his wife" then "Adam knew his wife again".

So chapter 4 just doesn't suggest the birth of any other children before Seth.

Then in chapter 5 we see:

Genesis 5:3-4 ESV
[3] When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. [4] The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.

Adam lived to 130, then fathered Seth. The days of Adam *after* fathering Seth were 800, and he had other sons and daughters.

It doesn't say "Adam lived to 130 and then fathered Seth and other sons and daughters. The days after Seth were 800"

The order of the verse suggests that other sons and daughters were born after Seth in the later 800 years of Adams life.

It's just another case of, if people hold to solar scriptura and we are just reading the text as it is, YECism just doesn't make any sense.

@tampasteve

 

[John Bauer]

I watched Dr. John Walton, and it is very well done and interesting. The biggest problem I have is that he claims that Adam’s care of Eden is priesthood. That would mean that he was a priest to others in the garden. So, were more people than Adam and Eve sent out of the garden?

(1) Not necessarily the garden particularly, but rather Eden generally—and ultimately the broader world. Think of the garden as an inner sanctum, a kind of Holy of Holies. The functions of the priest were not restricted to the Holy of Holies, but to the people outside the temple itself. Just so with Adam. There was the garden, there was Eden, and there was the world at large.

(2) Adam's priestly role would include his wife and family, as it does for every husband.

 

[Platte]

I've always thought that the family concept just didn't add up. Because at that point in the story, Seth had not yet even been born. Let alone the other sons and daughters mentioned after Seth, later on in chapter 5.


Genesis 4:1-2, 25 ESV
[1] Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord.” [2] And again, she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground.
[25] And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, “God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him.”

Eve express praise to the Lord for giving her a child in place of Abel (suggesting that Seth was born next), and the text additionally just says, "Adam knew his wife" then "Adam knew his wife again".

So chapter 4 just doesn't suggest the birth of any other children before Seth.

Then in chapter 5 we see:

Genesis 5:3-4 ESV
[3] When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. [4] The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters.

Adam lived to 130, then fathered Seth. The days of Adam *after* fathering Seth were 800, and he had other sons and daughters.

It doesn't say "Adam lived to 130 and then fathered Seth and other sons and daughters. The days after Seth were 800"

The order of the verse suggests that other sons and daughters were born after Seth in the later 800 years of Adams life.

It's just another case of, if people hold to solar scriptura and we are just reading the text as it is, YECism just doesn't make any sense.

@tampasteve

What about the possibility that there were other children before Cain and Abel? The Bible never says Cain and Abel were their first children.

 

[Jerry N.]

(1) Not necessarily the garden particularly, but rather Eden generally—and ultimately the broader world. Think of the garden as an inner sanctum, a kind of Holy of Holies. The functions of the priest were not restricted to the Holy of Holies, but to the people outside the temple itself. Just so with Adam. There was the garden, there was Eden, and there was the world at large.

(2) Adam's priestly role would include his wife and family, as it does for every husband.

I guess that would make perfect sense. However, like Platte wrote, it would imply that Adam and Eve had children after being sent out of Eden, which is supported by the curse. Either Adam and Eve didn’t have sex or they sinned within 9 months of the creation of Eve. That would also fit with human nature.