Bible literalism.

[Jamsie]

actually we make the claim that the Bible gives us the details for it.

Whoever "we" is their wrong... this was clearly shown to you. You clearly stated on certain details "unknown time, not specified".

And the statement in legal code in Ex 20:11 that confirms what all the scholars in Hebrew and OT studies in all the world-class universities regarding the "kind of literature" that Genesis 1-2 is... a historic account.
Regardless if they agree with the accuracy of the account or not - they all agree it is a 7 day week - like our own today. Not a lot of "fancy foot work" going on with Moses as he conveys the very simple and direct account to the newly-freed slaves from Egypt.

Again, you are very wrong...they might agree that it was 6 creative days but not that it was as it is today. YEC imposes upon God the time restraints the Bible does not.

I don't make that claim - rather I argue that if one says that Bible details no matter how simple and obvious should not be accepted as fact but rather as personal preference - then a lot of Bible details get caught up in that kind of net.

Again, you are well aware that the details are both not all known or specified completely. Go through your arguments and posts in General Theology...then tell me why there is disagreement?

 

[hedrick]

Again, this was addressed and obviously dismissed. You confuse and misrepresent the science with the "metaphysical claims of naturalism". In fact if anything the discoveries and evidence from science, with an objective view, appears to support God. Here is an excerpt from a piece in Time years ago:

"The scientific atheists have scrambled to explain this troubling mystery by suggesting the existence of a multiverse—an infinite set of universes, each with its own parameters. In some universes, the conditions are wrong for life; however, by the sheer size of this putative multiverse, there must be a universe where everything is right. But if it takes an immense power of nature to create one universe, then how much more powerful would that force have to be in order to create infinitely many universes? So the purely hypothetical multiverse does not solve the problem of God. The incredible fine-tuning of the universe presents the most powerful argument for the existence of an immanent creative entity we may well call God. Lacking convincing scientific evidence to the contrary, such a power may be necessary to force all the parameters we need for our existence—cosmological, physical, chemical, biological and cognitive—to be what they are."

One characteristic of scientific models is that they need to be testable. Multiple universes has been suggested as a way to deal with fine tuning, but it won't be accepted as anything other than a hypothesis until people come up with a way to test it. It's also not the only hypothesis.

 

[Jamsie]

There are, I think three possible approaches to Gen 1

• The earth was created in 6 24 hour days around 6000 years ago
• It wasn't created in 6 24 hour days, but the Bible is inerrant. There are lots of approaches to this, from day age theory to long pauses between the days.
• It wasn't created in 6 24 hour days, and the Bible is simply wrong.

The third approach rejects inerrancy but need not (and usually does not) reject the Bible as a source of historical information. It does, however, involve using it the same way we use other sources of historical information, which is to say carefully, comparing with what else we know of the period, and taking into account the kinds of biases we can see in the work.

I agree with Barr that the second approach is untenable, but to claim that every scholar agrees you have to be selective about who you count. If someone restricts it to scholars at major universities, they may want to think carefully, since those same scholars are going to have views on other areas of the Bible that are they probably won't like.

There are more options available through considered interpretation. Let me suggest #4:

I will simply paste a previous capsule thought from a previous post (#168) - "As to 6 days - Exodus 20:11, etc. - one can call it a "week" (which nowhere is stated as such in the Bible) or one could easily call it a model for the term "week". Agreeing that the sole operative agency was "And God said,..." so that these commands/fiats required no further action or agency therefore obviously anything that would follow the command must be explanatory. So we see in Genesis that God commands agency to the land/water to produce-bring forth....only in verse 3 is immediacy stated "And God said, let there be light and there was light". Subsequent to that one will note that all commands become mediate... thus for example in verse 24 the fiat is directed to the land. Note that the passage states "And God said, Let the land produce ..." what the passage does not say is "And God said, Let there be living creatures, and there were living creatures". Clearly the command is directed to the land, a mediate agency empowered by God, and so the designated day is reference to the command/fiat. Thus the Genesis account for the most part (sans vs. 3) does not force a time element on the command...because it doesn't.

 

[Jamsie]

One characteristic of scientific models is that they need to be testable. Multiple universes has been suggested as a way to deal with fine tuning, but it won't be accepted as anything other than a hypothesis until people come up with a way to test it. It's also not the only hypothesis.

“For a cosmologist, the basic problem with all multiverse proposals is the presence of a cosmic visual horizon. The horizon is the limit to how far away we can see, because signals traveling toward us at the speed of light (which is finite) have not had time since the beginning of the universe to reach us from farther out. All the parallel universes lie outside our horizon and remain beyond our capacity to see, now or ever, no matter how technology evolves. In fact, they are to far away to have had any influence on our universe whatsoever. That is why none of the claims made by multiverse enthusiasts can be directly substantiated.”


Cosmologist George Ellis on the Multiverse

 

[hedrick]

“For a cosmologist, the basic problem with all multiverse proposals is the presence of a cosmic visual horizon. The horizon is the limit to how far away we can see, because signals traveling toward us at the speed of light (which is finite) have not had time since the beginning of the universe to reach us from farther out. All the parallel universes lie outside our horizon and remain beyond our capacity to see, now or ever, no matter how technology evolves. In fact, they are to far away to have had any influence on our universe whatsoever. That is why none of the claims made by multiverse enthusiasts can be directly substantiated.”


Cosmologist George Ellis on the Multiverse

And that’s why it’s just a hypothesis. However scientists have been very clever in the past about constructing tests. I wouldn’t be so confident that it will never be possible to test any multiple universe model. It’s possible that a model could imply multiple universes.but also things that can be tested. Or that some universes can be close enough to have a measurable effect.

 

[Jamsie]

And that’s why it’s just a hypothesis. However scientists have been very clever in the past about constructing tests. I wouldn’t be so confident that it will never be possible to test any multiple universe model. It’s possible that a model could imply multiple universes.but also things that can be tested. Or that some universes can be close enough to have a measurable effect.

Oh, I'm not confident...that was George Ellis. (Yes too, I should have said hypothesis)

Interesting read (somewhat beyond my grasp at times)

https://www.space.com/32452-can-science-explain-the-multiverse.html

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Doesn't really answer my question. The question is how to read Genesis, what is it, some read it as a literal account of creation, and therefore say the earth is young (about 6000 years old) others see it as a myth, poetry. What was the purpose of it being included in the Bible, so we could know the age of the earth, or some other reason?

Even if God could do it all in six twenty four days, that doesn't tell us whether he did or not, or that day is to be taken literally in Genesis 1. Could God be capable of doing it in six days but have done it by a longer process?

Charles Darwin came up with a theory that for some is a plausible explantion that showed how life could have evolved and because he had convinced himself, he was therefore able to convince others. But again showing that something could have happened that way, is not showing that it did in fact happen that way.

Reflections on Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker | Dallas Willard

I am just showing that could have doesn't equate to did actually.

Its not what i am asking, I want to know the about the significance of the Genesis account. Because I feel like I am missing it by reading it literally.

Rules of basic grammar and English should tell a person. Granted, we should ask the Spirit to help understand the Scriptures, but God is not going to compromise on the truth of what His Word actually says.

We get no indication in the text or elsewhere in the Bible that Genesis 1 is a metaphor. Thus is should be read literally. Only those who are embarrassed to stand up for God in that He can do the impossible beyond what Modern Science promotes will change what Genesis 1 says. But the creation is not the gospel or the most important truth in the Bible (as many today make it out to be). There should be no Creation ministries. The message of truth we should promote should not be the creation. The message we preach is Jesus Christ. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. Jesus died for our sins, He was buried, and He was risen three days later for our salvation (i.e. the gospel).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I didn't exactly ask about history, I asked how to approach the book of Genesis in the Bible - because I was reading some criticism (quoted above from Donald Bloesch) of Biblical Literalism - and I wanted to know how to tell what genre of literature, or manner of account different parts of the Bible are ,such as Genesis.

Some say the days are revelatory, in other words God over a period of seven days revealed to Moses the acts of creation.

The Seven Days of Revelation Theory

There are metaphors in Genesis. Many do ignore these metaphors and they fail to understand sometimes what is actually happening without knowing and applying the metaphors.

One example that most Christians misunderstand by their method of Wooden Literalism is the story of Noah and Ham in Genesis 9.

You can check out of what I am talking about in this CF thread here:

Biblical Metaphors Shed Light on Ham's Sin in Noah's Tent.

 

[BobRyan]

My view is quite simple on the details ... any interpretation of the creation account is ultimately opinion.

One "could" make that claim about all of the Bible including the virgin birth - but usually we don't go down that route for establish Bible fact. (And as noted earlier the 7 day creation week is a Bible fact admitted to by both atheist scholars and Christians). Some Bible facts "don't get any easier than that"

I say this only because OT scholars, theologians, Hebrew professors in all world-class universities appear to agree on the 7 day week as an historic account in Genesis whether they believe the account is correct or not.

So then - that's the easy part.

No one is making any claim about the virgin birth

actually we make the claim that the Bible gives us the details for it. (The Gospel accounts for example)

Whoever "we" is their wrong...

To each his own.

I am sticking with the Bible on this one.

 

[BobRyan]

...we are talking about Genesis/Creation.

And the statement in legal code in Ex 20:11 that confirms what all the scholars in Hebrew and OT studies in all the world-class universities regarding the "kind of literature" that Genesis 1-2 is... a historic account. Regardless if they agree with the accuracy of the account or not - they all agree it is a 7 day week - like our own today. Not a lot of "fancy foot work" going on with Moses as he conveys the very simple and direct account to the newly-freed slaves from Egypt.

People that were not about to "insert darwinism" into everything that Moses wrote - as all scholars agree.

In other words - the easy part.

The Earth "was formless and void" and "darkness covered the surface of the deep" -- that is the "starting conditions" ..
...
But just at the most obvious - simplest scope in Ex 20:11 we have gone well past answering every question regarding "the kind of text that it is " historic record, and the time-span 7-days, etc.

Ex 20:8-11
8. six days you shall labor ...
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

one more time...

Ex 20:8-11
8. six days you shall labor ...
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Again, you are very wrong...they might agree that it was 6 creative days but not that it was as it is today.

In fact "as it is today"

ahhh yes - "the kind of literature" it is.


We might all agree that atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.


Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:


‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

===================================================
In the above example - the statement is made that the experts on the Hebrew language and OT text at all world-class university - have no doubt at all that the text in Genesis is given as a historic account. They "just don't believe" the account. But when it comes to "the kind of literature that it is" they all agree - it was written for the audience to accept as a historic account.

So that gets the "expert" answer on "the kind of literature that it is" -- and do atheists accept that historic account as being "accurate"? Well "no" of course.

So that was...

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:


‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

 

[Jamsie]

And the statement in legal code in Ex 20:11 that confirms what all the scholars in Hebrew and OT studies in all the world-class universities regarding the "kind of literature" that Genesis 1-2 is... a historic account. Regardless if they agree with the accuracy of the account or not - they all agree it is a 7 day week - like our own today. Not a lot of "fancy foot work" going on with Moses as he conveys the very simple and direct account to the newly-freed slaves from Egypt.

People that were not about to "insert darwinism" into everything that Moses wrote - as all scholars agree.

In other words - the easy part.



one more time...

Ex 20:8-11
8. six days you shall labor ...
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

Gen 2
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

I believe the record is skipping... Are you arguing with yourself or trying to convince yourself? You continue to post the same thing when it isn't being argued... and as was shown there are scholars who disagree with the details, so referencing Barr serves little to no purpose.

And for now....you are wrong about James Barr. I don't have time now but actually Barr would be considered OEC, he also believed that Noah's flood was portrayed being the whole earth for theological reasons. ...will have to wait till later, unless you insist on broken record responses.

 

[Jipsah]

Since when do we turn to science to tell us what He did or didn't do ???

Always. Science tells us, for instance, that the earth orbits the sun. Scripture is silent on the matter. Therefore science tells us that: A) God made the earth orbit the sun, and that B) He did not make the sun orbit the earth.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Always. Science tells us, for instance, that the earth orbits the sun. Scripture is silent on the matter. Therefore science tells us that: A) God made the earth orbit the sun, and that B) He did not make the sun orbit the earth.

1Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,

2“Who is this that darkens counsel
By words without knowledge?

3“Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!

4“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell Me, if you have understanding...

With respect to beginnings, we can reflect on what He has done but not know how and when...

We can study what He established but creation itself is a mystery.

He has put eternity in our hearts that we may never know the beginning form the end. (Ecc 3:11)

This wonder is part of our eternal worship of His Glory.