Who is calling Moses a darwinist? I certainly didn't nor do I reject a literal view, I say the litteralness of the account is the least important part. please don't misrepresent me
Genesis is written in different styles and it cannot be all conflated into historical narrative. The creation account has a very clear chaistic structure in it of A 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, A, foreshadowing and it is not in a logical order (the light is created before the sun). There are also a lot of very concrete concepts that have been translated into English abstract that may take away from the account. All of these, plus that it's written 2500 years after it happened reasonably point to a different genre.
The word create in Hebrew has closer meaning with forming and filling and even more concretely "fattening" but since English wouldn't allow "God fatten the sky and land" we translate it with abstracts which can influence it's meaning. The word create is not in the first 3 days and what God seems to be doing is separating and the last 3 days God is filling.
We pretend that God is bringing forth out of nothing but the text is not that straight forward and we learn later that man is actually formed out of earth and this is more consistent with how an ancient mindset would view creation which is forming or filling up something that is already there not bringing forth out of nothing which is too abstract of a concept. The text tells us the earth was formless and void as the canvas for day 1, so God speaks light into it, separates the waters from the air, the seas and the land then he fills these vessels. So where did the formless void come from? That's not a question an ancient Hebrew would ask nor is it a focus of the text.
So "litteral" has a lot of preconceived ideas built in there that should not be about how a modern abstract western's world view but about how an ancient mindset thinks. You need to think like an ancient Hebrew to understand this text and what it is saying and also what it is not saying. When you think like a westerner you're going to get a western answer.
Moses is an eyewitness to his own life. The further you are from an eye witness the more oral accounts become fluid. There are goals to the accounts which the details are there to support but they may not be how it actually went. This is standard for oral accounts from ancients and should be assumed (especially from Eastern worldviews). The more uniqueness it has with Hebrew life/culture the more attention to details it's going to have. This is why prior to Abraham you have little stories with large gaps but when Abraham comes into the picture there is a turning point and rich detailed accounts start without large voids. the account of Abraham and his line is more important and intimate to the Hebrews and there would be no outside competition or influence that an account of the flood or creation doesn't have as there would be wide influence and completion with surrounding cultures. Everyone's got a flood story and everyone's got a creation story, but only the Hebrews have an Abraham story.
But even in these Abrahamic accounts we see details that are fluid like Rebecca drawing water for the camels. There were no domesticated camels during that time in that region so this part of the story we already see is taking on contextual details that would fit a post-exodus Hebrew understanding. So we see the stories taking on a modernization to better speak to its audience and communicate it's purpose better.
I didn't say that either. But using the biblical time line from creation to Moses it's about 2500 years. I've made very detailed genealogy records and have counted the years, personally but it also agrees with any record you can google (or you can do the math yourself). So according to the biblical time line and reading the days/years "as is" there is creation and 2500 years later there is Moses who is credited with writing the creation account. Suffice to say Moses doesn't really know what happened and he has to be told what to write down we must then look at the purpose of writing this text down to understand it's meaning. (Hint: look at the foreshadowing, the mindset of the Hebrews of that time and their wide influence and corruption)
As for gaps inbetween the days I have never even suggested that so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up. Every word in the bible is perfect the way it is and we do not need to fix the text by adding stuff inbetween the lines to support our theories but we do need to understand their roles to interpret them correctly.
Last edited:
Upvote
0