God Told Moses How Creation Happened

[busterdog]

Now would I claim it as a proof. The OP is entirely based on similar reasoning -- 'since God talked to Moses and some of the Torah is attributed to God, Genesis 1 must be a factual account and therefore must be true.' (paraphrase)

I'm not sure what your dare has to do with anything -- if I were face-to-face with God, I would, by definition, be looking at something more than a poem. To take your dare a bit less literally, nothing in the texts suggest that Genesis 1&2 were dictated or otherwise given directly by God so making grand claims about what one would see in the presence of God don't really have much to do with showing how a Biblical author would choose to convey God's sovreinty over other ANE gods.

Well, I think we agree that my form of reasoning is not absolute proof. Probably the way I said it was confusing. That's what I meant. It makes some siense, but it just doesn't answer the question all that well.

 

[shernren]

But, I can guarantee for myself and I double dog dare you to admit, if you can be face to face with God, I know I would be looking for something more than a poem about how it all started!

Why not? Poetry is beautiful; it has enriched my life and walk with God more than a thousand dusty scientific theorems. Besides, all Job got was a poem too. Are you more righteous than him?

Presumptively, he has all of them? Why not?

If Jesus was God, eternally existent, what does that say?

Sometime during the first few centuries, the church somehow felt the need to debate whether Jesus would defecate. Seems like a waste of time to want to go there.

To deny that God has arms and legs is a nonsense argument. Are we going to split hairs about how God the father differs from Jesus in form and appearance? Doesn't that become teh question? Isn't that a complete waste of time?

You're willing to split hairs on something as trivial as the past speed of light, and not to spend any time at all on the grand relationship between the Father and His perfect revelation in human flesh? You've got to be kidding!

The theophany of John 1 clearly states that Jesus became flesh. The Christological hymn of Philippians 2 states that Jesus took on the nature of a servant. It is ironic that on one hand you say that YECism emphasizes God's action in the world - and on the other, you would emphasize His immutability and aseity at the expense of that very action!

If God has hands and legs, and our being in the image of God refers to our having hands and legs, then our humanity becomes very disturbingly fragile:

Does a thalidomide baby born without limbs bear the image of God?
Does a war veteran with double amputations of the legs bear the image of God?
Does an embryo, who has no limbs, bear the image of God?
Does someone with polydactyly, or the ostrich-toed people of Africa, bear the image of God? (But they don't have five fingers on each hand or five fingers on each foot!)
Did Samson still bear the image of God after his eyes were gouged out?
Or did the servant in the garden bear the image of God for the five minutes in which he didn't have his ear?

Our society marginalizes the physically handicapped enough. Their life is bad enough; they don't need to be told in addition that they aren't made in the image of God!

 

[Mallon]

To deny that God has arms and legs is a nonsense argument. Are we going to split hairs about how God the father differs from Jesus in form and appearance? Doesn't that become teh question? Isn't that a complete waste of time?

busterdog, I've seen you try to use Jesus' own words in an attempt to contradict evolutionary creationists on things like the authorship of Genesis or the creation of Adam and Eve. So I would think you would be a little more apt to hear what Jesus had to say about God's manifestation: "God is spirit" (John 4:24). Elsewhere it is said, "God is love" (1 John 4:8). Does a spirit have arms? Does love have legs?
Do you really think God is an old white guy with sandals and a long beard?

 

[busterdog]

Why not? Poetry is beautiful; it has enriched my life and walk with God more than a thousand dusty scientific theorems. Besides, all Job got was a poem too. Are you more righteous than him?

Interesting derail on the righteousness of Job.

I think his righteousness extends as far as yours and mine:

Job 19:25
For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth:

Much of that other kvetching by Job seemed a bit sinful to me. But, he did say this and it was the confession of Jesus as redeemer. That's about all he needs to say to say rightly.

Job got a poem? Well, you and I are aware of our differing opinions on this. And you know what Dirty Harry said about opinions and everybody having one. (Google it, since I can't repeat it here.)

What did Job get?

Job 42:5
I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

Does that prove that none of it was poetry? I imagine we differ on that too. I still remain committed to the idea that God speaks deliberately, clearly and directly and shows up to bring the point home.

By the way, you are going to be 20? Why does it seem like you are about 38? You have wisdom beyond your years. OUt of the mouths of babes indeed.

 

[busterdog]

busterdog, I've seen you try to use Jesus' own words in an attempt to contradict evolutionary creationists on things like the authorship of Genesis or the creation of Adam and Eve. So I would think you would be a little more apt to hear what Jesus had to say about God's manifestation: "God is spirit" (John 4:24). Elsewhere it is said, "God is love" (1 John 4:8). Does a spirit have arms? Does love have legs?
Do you really think God is an old white guy with sandals and a long beard?

If the truth be told, since he does in fact have arms and legs, both the above bearded figure, or Roseanen Bar for that matter, would be closer to the truth than just some amorphous concept.

I am partly trying to tease you with the above.

I am not sure why we disagree here. Lets see if we can agree on the many things that God is. One who speaks out of the whirlwind (Job). A consuming fire (Exodus). A baby (Matthew and Luke). A man with hair like fine wool and feet like brass refined in a fire (Revelation). Spirit. (As you said.) A dazzling light (in Ezeiel when the Shekinah leaves and Matthew when it appears over the shepards on Christmas).

One has to choose between the many forms of God to determine that the reference to arms and hands is merely metaphor. How is that we can decide that only one form is in play in order to make the reference metaphor?

 

[busterdog]

The theophany of John 1 clearly states that Jesus became flesh. The Christological hymn of Philippians 2 states that Jesus took on the nature of a servant. It is ironic that on one hand you say that YECism emphasizes God's action in the world - and on the other, you would emphasize His immutability and aseity at the expense of that very action!

If God has hands and legs, and our being in the image of God refers to our having hands and legs, then our humanity becomes very disturbingly fragile:

Does a thalidomide baby born without limbs bear the image of God?
Does a war veteran with double amputations of the legs bear the image of God?
Does an embryo, who has no limbs, bear the image of God?
Does someone with polydactyly, or the ostrich-toed people of Africa, bear the image of God? (But they don't have five fingers on each hand or five fingers on each foot!)
Did Samson still bear the image of God after his eyes were gouged out?
Or did the servant in the garden bear the image of God for the five minutes in which he didn't have his ear?

Our society marginalizes the physically handicapped enough. Their life is bad enough; they don't need to be told in addition that they aren't made in the image of God!

All those handicaps are no less the image of God than any other body. In the end, the saved will have a glorified body. The image will be completed. Now the image is partial, but still and image.

What did Steven see when heaven opened? Jesus, a man, standing at the right hand of the Father.

I don't think it really is a close case on the point of when God took on the form of a man. Scripture also says that God does not change. Can you ever prove that there was a time when humanity was never a part of who Jesus was? The very name of God is an anatomical reference. Hands Behold, Nails Behold = YHWY. Your reference to JOhn is to taking on flesh. It does not say that God could not take on flesh at an earlier time. He clearly took on cloud and fire as a form. WHy not flesh? That he took on flesh at any time cannot rule out that his appearance in whatever medium bares similarity to the morphology of man, made in His image. To say otherwise is just such mind-boggling speculation about the way things are in heaven and were before creation.

Lets take an easier case that we can agree upon. An angel slew 185,000 in the Syrian camp in the time of Hezekiah. This shows that the arm of the Lord was not too short to protect Israel. That would be a metaphorical reference.

But, to deny that God has no arms and no hands until 2 BC is to undertake a feat of metaphysics that I just really can't comprehend. Saying when precisely God was anything is always far more troublesome than to say that God is always thus and so.

 

[Assyrian]

So how do you work out when 'the hand of the Lord' is metaphorical and when it is literal? And on what do you base your claim that Deut 5:15 is one of the literal ones?

 

[busterdog]

So how do you work out when 'the hand of the Lord' is metaphorical and when it is literal? And on what do you base your claim that Deut 5:15 is one of the literal ones?

I already did that once in Genesis and Psalms. No one thought it made sense then. So .....

Wasn't that my question for you guys?

(Note the clever dodge.)



By the way, no one has offered evidence on Moses being the writer of Genesis. THe Missler thing was a little thin, unless I missed something.

 

[Xaero]

“And I have spoken to the prophets, and have increased visions. And through the prophets I gave parables.” Hosea 12:10

 

[Willtor]

I already did that once in Genesis and Psalms. No one thought it made sense then. So .....

Wasn't that my question for you guys?

(Note the clever dodge.)



By the way, no one has offered evidence on Moses being the writer of Genesis. THe Missler thing was a little thin, unless I missed something.

To the first thing (the physical appearance of God) whether it is understood or not, and whether it makes things complicated or not, I'd strongly caution against an interpretation that assigns God literal physical features. As has been said, if God is invisible spirit, I'd be hesitant to say that He is visible physical. If He presents Himself to prophets and patriarchs in physical form (literally), then I would argue that it is for our sake and not because it is something essential to Himself.

Regarding Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, I'm not sure. I tend to lean that way on account of Walter Kaiser's arguments in "The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable & Relevant?" But I have not investigated much deeper than that, so I usually just say, "the author," even if that really means, "the authors."

 

[Assyrian]

I already did that once in Genesis and Psalms. No one thought it made sense then. So .....

Wasn't that my question for you guys?

(Note the clever dodge.)

Well we have these phrases, 'the arm of the Lord', 'the hand of the Lord' and they are used throughout the bible to refer to the Lord's mighty strength, rather than his anatomy. We even have it in Isaiah 53: Who has believed what they heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him (vs1&2). Here we learn about the Messiah, God the Son. This is not just the Lord's arm, it is his knees and toes, his shoulders, ears, nose, mouth, teeth, hair, bellybutton, the whole enchilada. Yet Isaiah refers to the coming of the Messiah as the arm of the Lord being revealed.

Deut 20 isn't even referring to a theophany. No one saw any bodyparts during the Exodus, or even a whole figure. God appeared in the form of a burning bush a pillar of cloud or fire. Even when God is giving the ten commandments he is quite happy to use figurative language like the hand and arm of the Lord.

But it is only an unsupported presumption that when God speak face to face he turns into a literalist. I think what we have here is bible literalists creating a god in their own image. They think literalism is best, so obviously when God communicates face to face he is going to speak literally.

By the way, no one has offered evidence on Moses being the writer of Genesis. THe Missler thing was a little thin, unless I missed something.

Genesis describes itself as a compilation, though I have no problem with Moses being the compiler. None of Misslers quotes speak of Moses as the author of Genesis, in fact one seems to deny it. John 7:22 Moses gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. The nearest we have is the OT scriptures referred to as 'Moses and the prophets' but that was simply the common idiom of the time rather than a direct statement of the authorship of the Pentateuch.

I don't think Missler is being very honest in his analysis here. He wants to show Moses was author of Genesis, so he gives a long list of passages that describe Moses as author of the Torah, specifically the one who gave the Jews the OT law. None of these passages refer to the earlier book of Genesis, unless as a general label for the first part of the bible, or the specific denial of Moses as the one who gave the Jews circumcision.

 

[shernren]

What did Job get?

Job 42:5
I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

Does that prove that none of it was poetry? I imagine we differ on that too. I still remain committed to the idea that God speaks deliberately, clearly and directly and shows up to bring the point home.

Can God not speak deliberately, clearly, and directly, and bring His point home, through poetry? The assumption that He can't didn't come from Scripture.

By the way, you are going to be 20? Why does it seem like you are about 38? You have wisdom beyond your years. OUt of the mouths of babes indeed.

Nah, I'm not wise. If I really were wise, I would truly realize how futile it is trying to convince people that their theology is trashy and that mine isn't, and you wouldn't hear a word from me here again. As it is, I am foolish to try to speak of things none of us understands very well. But the quest of defending truth brings me joy, no matter how foolish it is, and so I will keep to it while I am still young; for with much learning comes much grief, and of the writing of trenchant Internet posts on doctrinal bases there is no end.

But, to deny that God has no arms and no hands until 2 BC is to undertake a feat of metaphysics that I just really can't comprehend. Saying when precisely God was anything is always far more troublesome than to say that God is always thus and so.

And precisely what would it mean for a God who is eternally a body to be omnipresent and omnipotent? That is a far greater and sillier metaphysical question than to ask if Jesus had a body before His Incarnation - if indeed we can speak of Him being "before" Incarnation at all.

 

[busterdog]

Can God not speak deliberately, clearly, and directly, and bring His point home, through poetry? The assumption that He can't didn't come from Scripture.

Well, he would have to write better poetry than Genesis 1 through 6.

 

[Assyrian]

Have you ever heard Gen 1 in Hebrew? It is awesome, sends shivers down my spine.

 

[Deamiter]

Well, he would have to write better poetry than Genesis 1 through 6.

lol, "I think Genesis 1 sucks as poetry therefore since God has the same standards as I, Genesis 1 can't be poetry. QED."

Very... convincing.

 

[shernren]

Well, he would have to write better poetry than Genesis 1 through 6.

Go on, continue telling God how to write Scripture. I find it highly amusing.

 

[HypnoToad]

Early Genesis is not poetry. The Hebrew grammar used is that of narrative, not poetry.

See:
http://www.ldolphin.org/genmyth.html
or read "Hard Sayings of the Bible", the section on Gen.1-2 by Walter Kaiser.

In response to the OP, it's possible to rely on the details of Genesis not because God told Moses what happened, but because Genesis is possibly comprised of eyewitness accounts, later compiled by Moses. (This still allows Genesis to be called a "book of Moses".)

It's known as the "Tablet Theory", which you can read about here:
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/Toledoth.html

One of the neat conclusions of this theory is that Genesis 1 may have been written by God, Himself (just like He wrote the commandments for Moses).

 

[busterdog]

lol, "I think Genesis 1 sucks as poetry therefore since God has the same standards as I, Genesis 1 can't be poetry. QED."

Very... convincing.

As Xian Jedi indicates, it just doesn't read like poetry.

Even good prose, like Hemingway or EB White, has excellent metrical structure and is sensitive to sound. But, it ain't poetry.

As we have noted time again, the text determines its purposes, they are narrative. Since Hebrew poetry uses a pattern of concepts, we can make the rather simple comparison in structure.

 

[gluadys]

Early Genesis is not poetry. The Hebrew grammar used is that of narrative, not poetry.

Poetry and narrative are not exclusive categories. Many poems are narratives* and many narratives are recounted in poetry. So the fact that the Hebrew grammar used is that of narrative does not rule out the possibility that it is also poetry.





*My Grade Nine poetry text was a collection titled "Poems, Chiefly Narrative". Ballads and epics are both poetic forms of narrative and other poetic forms can also be used to narrate a story. See for example Robert Browning's Poem entitled "My Last Duchess".

 

[gluadys]

As Xian Jedi indicates, it just doesn't read like poetry.

Well that is a pretty subjective opinion, especially if you are relying on translation. It is notoriously difficult to translate poetry and still retain the poetic feel of it.

What does it mean to "not read like poetry"? For some people anything that does not rhyme doesn't "read like poetry" (which eliminates the alliterative poetry of Anglo-Saxon and Middle English, not to mention the blank verse of Shakespeare's plays as poetry). For some people anything not in iambic pentameter doesn't "read like poetry". Yet we are all aware of poetry that has no standard metre.

It is pretty difficult to pin down the feel of poetry.

Even good prose, like Hemingway or EB White, has excellent metrical structure and is sensitive to sound. But, it ain't poetry.

As we have noted time again, the text determines its purposes, they are narrative. Since Hebrew poetry uses a pattern of concepts, we can make the rather simple comparison in structure.

Even granting all that, we still have the fact that poetry and narrative are not exclusive categories. Narrative can be recounted in poetic form; poems can be narrative in nature and purpose.

We also have, as you have noted, the intermediate possibility of poetic prose, so even if the formal structure of Genesis 1 is not that of typical Hebrew poetry, that does not exclude poetic features.

Finally, none of this has anything to do with whether or not the text requires a literal interpretation. It is quite possible that a poetic form conveys a literal narrative, or that a prose narrative conveys non-literal mythic and metaphorical concepts.