Genesis 1 is to be taken literaly - it is the only logical option

[Anguspure]

What do you disagree with? That the standard and favorite style of those days was mythology or what?

Why do you desire so much this ancient writing to be scientific?

I have not desire for Genesis to meet the modern myth. It is not necessary.

But I have read and read about material from scholars that predate the scientific age who read Genesis in the way I am describing.

Dr Gerald Schroeder writes: "Let me clarify right at the start. The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators’ description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option.

In trying to resolve this apparent conflict, it's interesting to look historically at trends in knowledge, because absolute proofs are not forthcoming. But what is available is to look at how science has changed its picture of the world, relative to the unchanging picture of the Torah. (I refuse to use modern Biblical commentary because it already knows modern science, and is always influenced by that knowledge. The trend becomes to bend the Bible to match the science.)

So the only data I use as far as Biblical commentary goes is ancient commentary. That means the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the Torah into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 500 CE), and the three major Torah commentators. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists.

This ancient commentary was finalized long before Hubble was a gleam in his great-grandparent's eye. So there's no possibility of Hubble or any other modern scientific data influencing these concepts.....

....Today, we look back in time. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small ― billions of times smaller ― the Torah says six days. They both may be correct.

What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning when stable matter formed from the light (the energy, the electromagnetic radiation of the creation) and time today is a million million, that is a trillion fold extension. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. It is a unit-less ratio. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe. In astronomy, the term is “red shift.” Red shift in observed astronomical data is standard.

The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward.

Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3300 years ago."
Age of the Universe

 

[solid_core]

I have not desire for Genesis to meet the modern myth. It is not necessary.

But I have read and read about material from scholars that predate the scientific age who read Genesis in the way I am describing.

Dr Gerald Schroeder writes: "Let me clarify right at the start. The world may be only some 6000 years old. God could have put the fossils in the ground and juggled the light arriving from distant galaxies to make the world appear to be billions of years old. There is absolutely no way to disprove this claim. God being infinite could have made the world that way. There is another possible approach that also agrees with the ancient commentators’ description of God and nature. The world may be young and old simultaneously. In the following I consider this latter option.

In trying to resolve this apparent conflict, it's interesting to look historically at trends in knowledge, because absolute proofs are not forthcoming. But what is available is to look at how science has changed its picture of the world, relative to the unchanging picture of the Torah. (I refuse to use modern Biblical commentary because it already knows modern science, and is always influenced by that knowledge. The trend becomes to bend the Bible to match the science.)

So the only data I use as far as Biblical commentary goes is ancient commentary. That means the text of the Bible itself (3300 years ago), the translation of the Torah into Aramaic by Onkelos (100 CE), the Talmud (redacted about the year 500 CE), and the three major Torah commentators. There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists.

This ancient commentary was finalized long before Hubble was a gleam in his great-grandparent's eye. So there's no possibility of Hubble or any other modern scientific data influencing these concepts.....

....Today, we look back in time. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small ― billions of times smaller ― the Torah says six days. They both may be correct.

What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning when stable matter formed from the light (the energy, the electromagnetic radiation of the creation) and time today is a million million, that is a trillion fold extension. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. It is a unit-less ratio. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe. In astronomy, the term is “red shift.” Red shift in observed astronomical data is standard.

The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward.

Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3300 years ago."
Age of the Universe

Genesis is not a modern myth. Genesis is also not a modern scientific objective description of cosmology.

Genesis is not modern, in the first place, its ancient. And it is written in the ancient mythological style, logically. It was not written to us, but to ancient people.

To list people who were mistaken too is not of much use. Even Augustin wrote that "everybody knows that there are only 3 continents" and argued about the possibility of people on the other side of Earth (Australia). People can be theologically right and scientifially wrong.

 

[klutedavid]

I have done my best not to "force you to post".. what else could I do?

I don't know what you can do, Bob. Considering that you posted a comment by me in your OP.

I feel compelled to comment on every post that you make on this thread.

 

[klutedavid]

all of that requires the timeline to be literal since it is "the timeline" that is the topic of the law in the case of Ex 20:8-11 it does not specify the order in law "First plants and then birds" for example. Rather the law specifically points to the timeline itself "six days you shall labor..for in six days the LORD made". Ex 20:11

Impossible to gloss over.



It does not matter if His statement is true or not - if He says it is true - then it is true even though evolutionism is more correct to say He is wrong and the timeline is nothing like what He said??

That is where Barr's statement comes to mind.

Does Genesis mention the dinosaurs?

 

[DamianWarS]

So either the law appeals to no event and is just an imperative or it is linked to a real past event. What you don't have is law that appeals to fiction as its foundation/basis.

or it's linked to an account that is non-literal. there is no reason why a non-literal account diminishes the meaning of the law. Why? because it's ordained and given by God so regardless of how literal it is, it is truth we can count on.

And then quote from Ex 20 "six days you shall labor ... FOR IN six days the Lord made"

As if to say that the LAW given in the language "for IN" could have the fact it appeals to be entirely not real at all. (Fiction is short for not literally real as used here)

there is a transcendent truth that can exist in any account literal or non-literal. the transcendent truth is more important than the literalness of the account because it's that truth that really matters. If the word "fiction" is being used for anything that is non-literal than sure use that term but if it is used for something that is false than I would oppose it as the transcendent truth in the creation account is more real than any other feature. I find non-literal is a better term to separate it from myth or fiction, you may call it as you choose but just know I don't see those words as equal so when you use them there is an aspect of misrepresenting my points.

That was not the point. That point is that you give no example at all where legal code is given in the form "Do this.. for I have done it that same way as an example for you here in this case" where the second part of that statement is totally not true.

In fact you argue that it does not matter whether the basis for the command as given in the command is actually true or not -- as if the Bible ever does that with legal code. Which you have failed to demonstrate so far.

you have failed to demonstrate why it's required. I also never said the creation account is not ture, you've introduced that language, I claimed it probably isn't literal and so call it a non-literal account which I think I've been quite consistent with, this is intention to differentiate it from myth or false (not ture) accounts which I don't accept. Regardless if it is literal or non-literal I still think the only responsible way to interpret it is as a non-literal account so to me there is no net difference and you've failed to show how it matters.

"non-literal" is carefully selected wording on my end but you don't seem to appreciate these nuances and rather use words like "fiction" or "non ture" and end up just mispresenting me, just know those are not the words I have chosen and I don't accept them. At the very least you should probably practice mirroring your opponent's language when trying to refute their claims otherwise it's just an argument about semantics which is what this has already turned into.

 

[Anguspure]

Genesis is not a modern myth. Genesis is also not a modern scientific objective description of cosmology.

Genesis is not modern, in the first place, its ancient. And it is written in the ancient mythological style, logically. It was not written to us, but to ancient people.

To list people who were mistaken too is not of much use. Even Augustin wrote that "everybody knows that there are only 3 continents" and argued about the possibility of people on the other side of Earth (Australia). People can be theologically right and scientifially wrong.

The modern myth belongs to Scientism. I have no desire to harmonise Genesis with the assumptions of that pernicious and arrogant superstition.

Augustine was geographically correct in his day and never claimed divine inspiration. His theology, mixing Greek philosophy and Jewish thought, is questionable anyway.

But you are correct about the possibility of being theologically correct while scientifically wrong, nevertheless Augustine also wrote:

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

— St. Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram (The Literal Meaning of Genesis) Vol 1 Ch 19

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
So either the law appeals to no event and is just an imperative or it is linked to a real past event. What you don't have is law that appeals to fiction as its foundation/basis.

or it's linked to an account that is non-literal. there is no reason why a non-literal account diminishes the meaning of the law. Why? because it's ordained and given by God

God can choose to use "do A - FOR I DID A to set the example" and when that is the case -- He must be telling the truth rather than making stuff up.

God can choose say "do A - for I am telling you to do A" and that is fine as well. It is logical and consistent.

But our righteous just and true God cannot say "Do A -- because the easter bunny switched to eating cheese... but not really" - because that is not logical and would be a corrupt

God is righteous and can be seen to be righteous, just and true.

 

[GodLovesCats]

It can't be both 6 days and 4.6 billion years. That is mathematically impossible. Because evidence proves Earth was billions of years old when life began and hundreds of millennia passed before human creation it is obvious the word day is incorrect.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Does Genesis mention the dinosaurs?

Genesis mentions huge beasts that walk on the earth. Of course, that description fits dinosaurs and other species. The Bible does not name any species that lived before man because that is not its purpose, but it is clear there were dinosaurs both scientifically and Biblically.

 

[BobRyan]

Does Genesis mention the dinosaurs?

For dry land we have this --

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. 25 God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Oh no wait! you want a taxonamy chart... yeah well "The chart" is not given there.

 

[BobRyan]

It can't be both 6 days and 4.6 billion years. That is mathematically impossible.

true.

Because evidence proves Earth was billions of years old when life began .

based on what assumptions?

 

[BobRyan]

The modern myth belongs to Scientism. I have no desire to harmonise Genesis with the assumptions of that pernicious and arrogant superstition.

Augustine was geographically correct in his day and never claimed divine inspiration. His theology, mixing Greek philosophy and Jewish thought, is questionable anyway.

He had a list of heresies that he proposed at one point.

One of them is that since God "can" create the World and all life on it in less than 7 days ... then God DID create the world and all life on it in less than 7 days and the words therefore in Genesis 1 can't be trusted as they state the timeline God specifies.

 

[BobRyan]

In fact most of the TEN - make no reference at all to any past event.. which also counts as not appealing to fiction to establish a point of law.

So either the law appeals to no event and is just an imperative or it is linked to a real past event. What you don't have is law that appeals to fiction as its foundation/basis.
"six days you shall labor...FOR IN six days the Lord made"

there is a transcendent truth that can exist in any account

"Truth can exist"??

Truth does exist in the parables of Christ - but that is not the point in historic accounts placed in legal code. One cannot "swap out" the kind of writing that it is - just because it crosses one's preference.

This is legal code.. not parable, not allegory, not myth

Details matter.

 

[BobRyan]

"six days you shall labor...FOR IN six days the Lord made"

who said anything about fiction?

you said --

a law doesn't need to be based on a literal event for it to be legally binding

And then quote from Ex 20 "six days you shall labor ... FOR IN six days the Lord made"

As if to say that the LAW given in the language "for IN" could have the fact it appeals to be entirely not real at all. (Fiction is short for not literally real as used here)

you seem to have a hard time understanding that powerful truth can be contained in non-literal accounts.

That was not the point. The point is that you give no example at all where legal code is given in the form "Do this.. for I have done it that same way as an example for you here in this case" where the second part of that statement is totally not true.

In fact you argue that it does not matter whether the basis for the command as given in the command is actually true or not

-- as if the Bible ever does that with legal code. Which you have failed to demonstrate so far.

you have failed to demonstrate why it's required.

Because it would be "bend-and-wrench" to take legal code and imagine one can abuse the text by declaring an imperative to be of the form "DO A... for I DID A as an example for you of A done right... only not really" as a brand new form of "legal code" never established to be legit at all in scripture ... just because one's preference "needs it"

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

God can say "Do 'A'" and it stands as logical and consistent.
OR
God can say "Do 'A' JUST as I DID 'A' and showed how it is done"

But the corrupted imprative form that you propose "Do 'A' just as i DID NOT DO 'A' but will say I did it anyway even though that is not what I did" -- would be a corruption in logic and reveal the speaker of such legal code to be defective in both logic and reason.

 

[DamianWarS]

Because it would be "bend-and-wrench" to take legal code and imagine one can abuse the text by declaring an imperative to be of the form "DO A... for I DID A as an example for you of A done right... only not really" as a brand new form of "legal code" never established to be legit at all in scripture ... just because one's preference "needs it"

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

God can say "Do 'A'" and it stands as logical and consistent.
OR
God can say "Do 'A' JUST as I DID 'A' and showed how it is done"

But the corrupted imprative form that you propose "Do 'A' just as i DID NOT DO 'A' but will say I did it anyway even though that is not what I did" -- would be a corruption in logic and reveal the speaker of such legal code to be defective in both logic and reason.

your pattern of thinking is simply incompatible with eastern logic and it has impaired your judgment on the text. In Jewish law if a son dies without a male offspring, a brother is to step in and marry the widow and try and get a male offspring. The male child is raised as the deceased man's son and occupies complete legal authority as the deceased man's heir and true son. This is an example of legal code that is honour and community-driven not driven by literal factual details yet it is legally binding and no one would dispute the heritage of the son. But you would have all offspring of the brothers remain as their own son in the name of being literal. Eastern logic doesn't care what you think and it goes on happily with its own set of rules of what it calls legal and what it doesn't regardless of what you think.

In eastern culture, an account that shows the most honour is better than one that is literal, and I'm speaking on a moral level as well and these accounts can be legally binding operating at official capacity. For example in the council of Nicea, the official number of bishops present was 318. Other counts have the number as low as 250 or 275 but not close to 318. 318 is an important number because it is the number of servants Abraham brought with him to rescue Lot and in greek it can represent the cross or Christ. So the role of number 318 helps ordain the council as from God. It actually doesn't matter how many bishops were there what matters is what's the best number that gives glory to God, and that number is 318 and this number is the official orthodox number even though in reality there was probably under 300. This legal number that still stands today is honour driven not fact-driven. You reject however the former and only accept the latter as acceptable, and because of this your judgment is impaired and incompatible with eastern thinking.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Based on what assumptions?

I am talking about proven facts man, not assumptions.

 

[BobRyan]

I am talking about proven facts man, not assumptions.

and you did not list any ... still.

 

[BobRyan]

"six days you shall labor...FOR IN six days the Lord made"

who said anything about fiction?

you said --

a law doesn't need to be based on a literal event for it to be legally binding

And then quote from Ex 20 "six days you shall labor ... FOR IN six days the Lord made"

As if to say that the LAW given in the language "for IN" could have the fact it appeals to be entirely not real at all. (Fiction is short for not literally real as used here)

you seem to have a hard time understanding that powerful truth can be contained in non-literal accounts.

That was not the point. The point is that you give no example at all where legal code is given in the form "Do this.. for I have done it that same way as an example for you here in this case" where the second part of that statement is totally not true.

In fact you argue that it does not matter whether the basis for the command as given in the command is actually true or not

-- as if the Bible ever does that with legal code. Which you have failed to demonstrate so far.

you have failed to demonstrate why it's required.

Because it would be "bend-and-wrench" to take legal code and imagine one can abuse the text by declaring an imperative to be of the form "DO A... for I DID A as an example for you of A done right... only not really" as a brand new form of "legal code" never established to be legit at all in scripture ... just because one's preference "needs it"

Were we simply "not supposed to notice"??

God can say "Do 'A'" and it stands as logical and consistent.
OR
God can say "Do 'A' JUST as I DID 'A' and showed how it is done"

But the corrupted imprative form that you propose "Do 'A' just as i DID NOT DO 'A' but will say I did it anyway even though that is not what I did" -- would be a corruption in logic and reveal the speaker of such legal code to be defective in both logic and reason.

your pattern of thinking is simply incompatible with eastern logic

Which would be great news for your effort to disprove the irrefutable statements I have made since you could simply go to the Bible - written with eastern logic to show all those laws of God that are of the form "Do 'A' just as i DID NOT DO 'A' but will say I did it anyway even though that is not what I did"

I can't imagine a better scenario in that case - for you to present substance in your proposal.

. In Jewish law if a son dies without a male offspring, a brother is to step in and marry the widow

That's nice.

But where is your much imagined "just as I stepped in when my brother died and so then I married his widow"??

"you do 'A' - just as I did 'A' ... but not really"

But you would have all offspring of the brothers remain as their own son in the name of being literal.

I find the paucity in that logic hard to get around given that we are talking about "...just as I did".

 

[GodLovesCats]

and you did not list any ... still.

Oh, so you refuse to prove your point until I prove mine.

 

[Anguspure]

He had a list of heresies that he proposed at one point.

One of them is that since God "can" create the World and all life on it in less than 7 days ... then God DID create the world and all life on it in less than 7 days and the words therefore in Genesis 1 can't be trusted as they state the timeline God specifies.

As we can see from space/time expansion and relativity it is likely that this is exactly what happened.