A question for Young Earth Creationists

[Smidlee]

This doesn't make sense. The Bible says Adam would die that day, not some distant time in the future.

This is exactly what the Law of God demanded . Thank God he had a redemption plan. Have any of you study the New Testment for this is the main message?

 

[jereth]

Gosh, this thread has been swamped by highly irrelevant discussions -- useful discussions no doubt, but irrelevant to the original topic.
Anyway...

What about the rest of the book? At what point does it switch from myth to history? Or does it? In your viewpoint, is the account of Abraham historical? How about Moses and the book of Exodus? How about King David? Where in the geneaology of Luke is the break between myth and history?

This is my opinion:
Genesis 1 is totally non-history, I think the passage's elaborate structure and rhythmic/formulaic nature make that clear. New Bible Dictionary (http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=1439) describes it as a theological hymn of praise.

Genesis 2-3 are highly mythical, that is clear from the elegant narration style, as well as the multitude of symbolic elements -- paradise garden, tree of life, tree of knowledge, forbidden fruit, serpent, fig leaves, flaming sword, cherubim etc.

Genesis 4 might be based on a historical murder, but I feel the story is also couched in semi-mythical elements (eg. the "mark" of Cain and the sevenfold vengeance).

Genesis 6-9 (story of flood) is probably based on a historical event, though the story is given elaborations (especially the elohist version). The main point is theological not historical.

Genesis 12 and onwards (abraham etc.) is definitely based on solidly historical figures and events, although retold with theological emphases.

As you can see, the "switch" from non-history to history is probably gradual, but even the so-called "historical" narratives are primarily there to teach theology, not just provide a historical account. Abraham, Moses and David are all historical figures, but their stories are told to us not as biographies (in the modern sense) but as religious/theological accounts. Remember that the Jews never considered there to be a "historical" section in their Bible -- there was only Law, Prophets and writings. The concept of "books of history" is alien to the Hebrew scriptures.

As for the genealogies, I don't think I'm qualified enough to give an adequate answer, but I believe that Luke clearly based his genealogy on Chronicles, which is based in turn on Genesis. I suspect the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 10 are quite legendary in nature, and not dissimilar to ancient king lists, but I really don't know enough about this topic to comment further. In any case, I don't see how Jesus' status is threatened if the early part of Luke's genealogy is semi-legendary. He is a descendant of Abraham and Israel through the line of Judah, and that is sufficient to establish his messianic status.

 

[Smidlee]

The problem is Christ is the Second Adam unlike your Boy cried wolf" story which isn't connected at all with other stories. the account of Adam is directly connected to the account of Jesus Christ. Thus make it a lot harder to dismiss it as just a myth without making the whole bible a myth.
You may believe Adam is a myth but it not written as a myth in scriptures.

 

[jereth]

The problem is Christ is the Second Adam unlike your Boy cried wolf" story which isn't connected at all with other stories. the account of Adam is directly connected to the account of Jesus Christ. Thus make it a lot harder to dismiss it as just a myth without making the whole bible a myth.

Can I just say that this is really a very bad argument: "if you make one part of the bible a myth, you're in danger of making the whole thing a myth". The connection between Adam and Christ is theological. In Adam men become sinners, in Christ men become righteous. Whether or not the Genesis story of Adam is historical or mythical does not affect this one bit.

The problem here is that the whole church has learnt to think after Augustine...

You may believe Adam is a myth but it not written as a myth in scriptures.

That's your opinion but mine is different. We can agree to disagree.

 

[RichardT]

This doesn't make sense. The Bible says Adam would die that day, not some distant time in the future.

Wrong, it says that..[SIZE=-1]"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die"

It's as if he was saying, in the second(or any time frame) the thou eatest, thou shalt surely die.

It dosn't mean that he would die in the second..

For it to mean that she would die in that day it would have to be like:

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die that day"

...
[/SIZE]

 

[RealityCheck]

I'm always amazed at how Biblical literalists can take the literal words of the Bible and twist them to say something they don't, but, coincidentally, just happen to say exactly what the Biblical literalist wants it to say.

 

[Melethiel]

"for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

That seems pretty unambiguous to me. Anyone with a basic knowledge of English grammar can see what it is saying, especially if you read it literally.

 

[djbcrawford]

"for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

That seems pretty unambiguous to me. Anyone with a basic knowledge of English grammar can see what it is saying, especially if you read it literally.

Yeah, but what was the ancient Hebew grammar?

 

[RichardT]

"for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

That seems pretty unambiguous to me. Anyone with a basic knowledge of English grammar can see what it is saying, especially if you read it literally.

I don't agree!

 

[Melethiel]

(Side note - this is why I don't like English. It's too easy to be ambiguous in grammar. Give me a nice inflected language any day...)

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yeah, but what was the ancient Hebew grammar?

The most interesting thing about these verses is the verbal expression used at the end of both verses 16 and 17. In both cases, the infinitive of the verb is followed by the verb itself. It's like saying "From every tree to eat you may eat; on the day you eat from it to die you will die"

Quoting A Biblical Hebrew Reference Grammar (see sidebar):
This construction usually intensifies the verbal idea. In this way BH [Biblical Hebrew] speakers/narrators express their conviction of the verity of their statements regarding an action. When a speaker has used this construction, a listener would not be able to claim at a later date that the speakers had not expressed themself (sic) clearly enough.

So how to translate this intensification? Friedman takes the 21st century way and uses italic font to emphasise the relevant words. Everett Fox uses "eat, yes, eat" and "die, yes die". The traditional English translation seems to be "surely" or "indeed". The French Bibles ignore it.
I chose to go with the words that my generation seems to use to express the conviction that a statement is true: really and definitely.

from: http://talmida.typepad.com/lesserweevils/2006/03/genesis_21517_w.html

the Hebrew construct is infinitive then verb.
like: to die, dying in English
the Hebrew explicitly means intensification or certainity

[T]he usage of the phrase “you shall surely die” (mot tamut) indicates that a violent, physical death is under consideration. This grammatical construction juxtaposes an infinitive absolute (mot), and the imperfect verb (tamut), which provides the emphatic nuance you will “surely, or indeed” die (Lambdin, 1971, p. 158). While it is true that the word “die” can refer to natural causes or to violent death (Smick, 1980, 1:496), the manner in which the verb is used in this phrase indicates the latter. In fact, this grammatical construction appears several times in the Hebrew Bible, and commonly denotes a physical, violent death (1995, 15:23).

from: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/43

there is pretty widespread agreement on the construct, less so on if intensification or certainty....

 

[RealityCheck]

I don't agree!

When you've spent the time studying Biblical Hebrew, Ancient Greek, the history of the translation of the Bible into various European languages including Latin and English, the motives behind specific translations (such as the KJV), and can back up "I don't agree" with a solid reason why you don't agree, then those words will mean a lot.

 

[djbcrawford]

Well, ultimately he ate it and did die, so the bible is correct. I believe if he hadn't eaten it, he wouldn't have died - ever. I believe his death began that day where his Godly self and innocence died immediately he had eaten, resulting in his physical body beginning to deteriate and dying some time later.

Arguing why he didn't drop dead on the spot just seems like a waste of time.

 

[Adoniram]

This is my opinion:
Genesis 1 is totally non-history, I think the passage's elaborate structure and rhythmic/formulaic nature make that clear. New Bible Dictionary (http://www.ivpress.com/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=1439) describes it as a theological hymn of praise.

Genesis 2-3 are highly mythical, that is clear from the elegant narration style, as well as the multitude of symbolic elements -- paradise garden, tree of life, tree of knowledge, forbidden fruit, serpent, fig leaves, flaming sword, cherubim etc.

Genesis 4 might be based on a historical murder, but I feel the story is also couched in semi-mythical elements (eg. the "mark" of Cain and the sevenfold vengeance).

Genesis 6-9 (story of flood) is probably based on a historical event, though the story is given elaborations (especially the elohist version). The main point is theological not historical.

Genesis 12 and onwards (abraham etc.) is definitely based on solidly historical figures and events, although retold with theological emphases.

As you can see, the "switch" from non-history to history is probably gradual, but even the so-called "historical" narratives are primarily there to teach theology, not just provide a historical account. Abraham, Moses and David are all historical figures, but their stories are told to us not as biographies (in the modern sense) but as religious/theological accounts. Remember that the Jews never considered there to be a "historical" section in their Bible -- there was only Law, Prophets and writings. The concept of "books of history" is alien to the Hebrew scriptures.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

The above verse indicates, "all scripture is inspired by God," and Moses admitted in Ex. 24:4 (and several other places) that his writing was from God: "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord..." The question that comes to my mind is, if the creation account related in Genesis is a myth, why would God instruct Moses to write an inaccurate account of it? He could have just as easily instructed Moses to write something like:


One day God saw a big bang so he went to see what was going on. And matter came out of the bang. The matter swirled around and finally coalesced into the earth. Some of the matter that was left produced a glow that enabled God to see that the earth was covered with water. And God was bored because billions of years had gone by with nothing much happening so he decided to call it a night.

The next day he woke up to find that residual heat from the explosion had turned some of the water into steam that rose up above the earth. So he went down to look things over. He didn't see much but when he looked up to where he had come from, it looked good to him so he said "Ahhhh, that's heaven." Satisfied, he laid down on a cloud to take a nap.

He must have slept for a long time because when he awoke and looked at the earth, he saw that some of the water had drained away. So, deciding to go down for a closer look, he looked for a place to land and called that place land. Looking out across the water to see what he could see, he called it sea. Turning around again, he saw a lot of green stuff all over the ground. He thought "Dude, what am I smoking, time is really gettin' away from me." So God called the green stuff grass. And he called the tall green stuff trees just because he liked the sound of it. And he found that the grass was soft as the clouds so that is where he spent the night.

A very bright light woke him. Looking up, he saw that some of the left over matter had fused together in the sky. Well this was so amazing, he called his boy down to have a look. He said "Son, you gotta see this." So the light was called sun. That night he noticed that there were more lights in the sky so he named them the moon and the stars (just for the heck of it) before calling it a day.

His snoring must have lasted a couple of billion years because it set up reverberations all through sky. He awoke to lighning flashing all over the place. A big bolt struck the water and as he watched, lo and behold, the water began to swirl with tiny creatures. "Now this is getting interesting" he thought so he sat on the bank for a couple of billion years and watched as the creatures grew into all manner of fish. Some of them even took to the air and began to fly around. These he called birds, because they flipped their wings at him as they flew by. "Oh this is good" he thought, and being pooped from a billion years of watching this transpire, he crashed right there on the bank.

The next day he was up bright and early, looking forward to another billion years. And he wasn't disappointed. As he watched, a fish flopped out of the water up onto the bank. It flopped around for awhile and then just laid there with a puzzled look on it's face. Suddenly, it started convulsing and then, plop, plop, fizz, fizz, out popped two legs and two arms where it's fins had been. Oh, was God excited. What would happen next? More fish flopped out, more legs popped out. Soon, after a couple of million years, there were all manner of beasts running around the beach. One ran up to God and butted him, and God said "You've got to be kidding me." So he called it a kid, and it turned into a goat later that day. One rather large one just ran around aimlessly, kind of horsing around so God called it a horse. Another one ran up a tree and God said "Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle." So that one was called a monkey. God watched it play in the trees for a couple of million years and all of the sudden it fell out of the tree. It's tail had fallen off making it difficult for it to remain up there. Anyway, it laid there, dazed, for a little while and then rose up on it's feet. Looking at God, it said "Man, who are you?" So God called it man. God told the man he was God, said "see you later" and decided to go back up to heaven to rest and think about all that he had seen.

And ever since that day, man has been on a quest to find God.


Sorry for the long diatribe, but the point is that if God had used evolution in the creation process, he would have instructed Moses to record the account in a manner similar to and as simple as the above and people would have understood it and believed it just the same. He would have had no need for the complicated scientific jargon that accompanies the theory of evolution today.

It is clear that throughout the history of the Jewish people, from the beginning, up to Jesus and beyond, and in the civilised world up to the last hundred and fifty years or so, people have not doubted the veracity of the books of Moses, the Pentateuch (Torah, or Septuagint, depending on your persuasion). Furthermore, if Jesus, being the Son of God, and having been there during the creation, had found fault with the Genesis account, he would have corrected the interpretation of that account, as he did with several other interpretations of OT scriptures. I can only surmise that Jesus considered the Genesis account rendered by Moses to be correct, and therefore, so must I.

 

[Assyrian]

How about if the Genesis account had verses like

And God said "Let the earth produce living creatures..."?

 

[jereth]

2 Tim. 3:16-17 "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

Now read that verse again, more carefully please. It says scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction, to make people righteous and ready for good works.

Now, here's the YECist version of 2 tim 3:16:
"All Scripture is given by dictation of God, and is profitable for accurate scientific knowledge, for chronology, for dating the earth, for instruction in history, that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for the study of the natural sciences.

The above verse indicates, "all scripture is inspired by God," and Moses admitted in Ex. 24:4 (and several other places) that his writing was from God: "And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord..." The question that comes to my mind is, if the creation account related in Genesis is a myth, why would God instruct Moses to write an inaccurate account of it?

Assumption #1: God "instructed" Moses. How do you know Moses didn't just write Genesis 1 all by himself (under providence)?
Assumption #2: Exodus 24:4 applies to the book of Genesis. That's a total leap, Exodus 24:4 is referring to the book of the law; the book of Genesis makes absolutely no authorship claim.
Assumption #3: That which is not literal-scientific is "inaccurate", myth = lie.

Sorry for the long diatribe, but the point is that if God had used evolution in the creation process, he would have instructed Moses to record the account in a manner similar to and as simple as the above and people would have understood it and believed it just the same.

Yes you're absolutely right -- IF he wanted to teach science. Thing is, God wasn't interested in teaching science, he was interested in teaching theology.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Yes you're absolutely right -- IF he wanted to teach science. Thing is, God wasn't interested in teaching science, he was interested in teaching theology.

I'd like to take a moment and build on this excellent posting.

The Scriptures have an overarching purpose:
these things are written that you might believe and that in believing you might have eternal life.

Now it is impossible for God to communicate in writing to people without using words, that is a limitation of people, not God. In order to accommodate Himself to our weaknesses the Scriptures are human words. Words required a linguistic context, which in turn requires a cultural one as well. Words do not and can not exist without this context.

Look at the rongo rongo boards of Easter Island.
their cultural context is gone, likewise they are unreadable, probably forever.

It is the proto-scientific context of Scripture that is the issue.
In particular, is God using this context to teach something more important than the context itself? or is God teaching the context as well as the content?

I can not talk about astronomy without a frame of reference, the most natural one is geocentric, essentially putting myself at the center of the universe. Is this wrong? It really depends on what you are trying to say and the context of where you are saying it. If i am talking to my wife on the phone and trying to explain why i got up so late this morning, saying that when the sun came up i was still reading is not as wrong an image as answering my 500 level astronomy class final with a geocentric answer.

The point is that context and purpose matter, they matter in Scripture. The fundamental error of YEists is to take the modern scientific cultural milieu and wholesale wrap the Scriptures in it and address to the Scriptures modern questions, which revolve around how. When the Scriptures primarily are interested in who and why type of questions.

The issue boils down to context, used or taught? Culturally bound or transculture? to the original readers or to everyone who believes? For Moses or for me?

is it necessary for the missionaries to put mumus on the Hawaiians for them to be "good Christians"?

does a new believer in China have to adopt western ideals along with the faith in Jesus in order to be a "proper Christian"?

is the faith bound to a particular culture and a particular time or is it timeless and boundless and just takes these forms because of the limitations of our humanity?

 

[Carey]

from: http://talmida.typepad.com/lesserweevils/2006/03/genesis_21517_w.html

the Hebrew construct is infinitive then verb.
like: to die, dying in English
the Hebrew explicitly means intensification or certainity


from: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/43

there is pretty widespread agreement on the construct, less so on if intensification or certainty....

The jews today could answer that but their language is the most pure oldest and unchanged language on earth.

 

[Carey]

When I was a small kid, my parents told me this story.

"Once there was a young boy who looked after a flock of sheep near a village. One day the boy ran into the village crying 'wolf, wolf!' The villagers rushed to the field, but found no wolf attacking the sheep. The next day the boy ran into the village again crying 'wolf, wolf!'. Again the villagers hurried to the field, but again there was no wolf. The boy did this a third time, and a fourth. Then one day a wolf came from the forest and attacked the sheep. The boy ran into the village crying 'wolf, wolf!' But this time no one believed him, and the flock was devoured.

The moral of the story is that you should never cry 'wolf'. Even when liars tell the truth, they are not believed."


My questions, directed at Young Earth Creationists, are:
1. Is this story a historical, factual account or is it a myth?
2. Does this story convey truth, or is it a false and worthless tale?

I dont get how it pertains to Creationism?

But of course the story has value.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The jews today could answer that but their language is the most pure oldest and unchanged language on earth.

no.
Hebrew shows the same linguistic evolution as any other human language.
and no, there is no evidence that Adam spoke Hebrew.
start with a short links list at:
http://www.zigzagworld.com/citywall/hebrewhistory.htm

the modern examples for the oldest unchanged languages are the click languages of the San and Khwe
see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khoisan_languages

there are several independent lines of evidence for this idea.
start with:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/mountainlab/research/agd/tanzania/index.html

it is curious, given the zionist resurrection of modern hebrew and the resistance to it by the most conservative jews like the hasidim that this mistaken argument continues to circulate.


o'well, i just should not expect so much from some people, as to to their homework......
shucks.


post edit:
and google does not yield jewish webpages that explain the hebrew construct?

everyone has a right to their opinion,
but no one has a right to demand that i take their opinion seriously unless they have done their homework....

Pastor Hugh Braum, Vista Community Church late 1970's