I read it literally now

[Philis]

I've given in to reading the creation account literally now. But at first I was having a problem, since there were so many conflicting "literal" interpretations out there, many of which were more interpretation than actual literal readings.

So to solve this problem I decided to read it in a way that the original audience would have read it. If I use my presuppositions about the universe to read it, then I will get it wrong. I have to look at what the text actually says.

There are a couple of things to note about the original audience. First, it was a culture that was mainly polytheistic. Second, the universe was water, it was a giant ocean and there was a canopy that kept the water from crashing down (obviously, why else would the sky be blue). Finally, they were more concerned with a functional ontology than a material ontology. To us, "nothing" literally means "nothing". But to them "nothing" applied to anything without a function. For example, the mud on the bottom of the nile was formless and void, it was without purpose. This is why the imagery of a potter is so powerful for that culture.

So now the universe is a giant ocean. So what does God do? He makes the heavens and the earth. The ANE readers would have understood this to be a formless functionless lump of dirt in the middle of the waters (under the waters as well) and the heavens would have been above the waters. The earth is even described as formless and void, and God is hovering over the face of the waters (in the heavens).

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


Then He makes the light and darkness which I will skip over for now.


Then God makes a solid dome above the earth to keep out the waters above. There are waters above the dome, and waters below the dome.


6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.


Then God gave the functionless land function by gathering it together to form land.


9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


Skipping a little bit again we get to the sun/moon/stars being made. They were placed in the firmament. This means there would have been water above them. Reading this literally from the ANE perspective makes perfect sense, yet no literalist was able to explain this part to me without interpreting the text (in other words, not taking it literally).



14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,


So looking at the structure of the universe that the creation account actually describes, and taking into consideration how the immediate audience would have literally read it, there's a few conclusions I've come to.


God was more concerned with correcting their theology than giving a science lesson. He made it clear that there was only one God. He didn't even use the proper words for sun and moon because in Hebrew those are words for gods. He set up the framework of the story in such a way that he made kingdoms the first three days and the kings the next three days (Light day 1 ruled by luminaries day 4, sky/water day 2 ruled by birds/fish day 5, land/vegitation day 3 ruled by man/animals day 6) and then a rest. It creates an image of a workweek for people to follow that is used later in scripture as well.


Obviously, this can't be taken as literal science. This isn't some attempt to smuggle Darwin into Christianity, it's what theologians have been saying since long before Darwin. You can't reasonably think that God made light before lights, even the early church fathers pointed that out. And why would God bother making water just to separate it later? With the modern literal view there is no point, but with the view the ANE crowd had, it makes perfect sense (the universe was a giant oceans so it had to be separated).


The interesting conclusion I draw from this is that the YEC view isn't literal, it's actually concordism. Instead of reading it literally in the same way it was read 2,000 years ago, they adjust it to fit their modern understanding of science. In doing so a lot of the original meaning is lost. Trying so hard to make it fit science means missing out on understanding what was being said to the ancient culture.

This is just the first half of the first of 3 chapters. I'll leave it at this for now so this isn't too long. For those who don't agree with me I don't expect to change your mind, I just hope you'll put in the effort to understand my view better.

 

[samaus12345]

So you had a revelation of it? (i did) or you didnt? I still not quite sure what you were saying at the end there?

 

[samaus12345]

Science comes after the fact, like science hinges upon the axiom that "In the beginning God created" without that there is no logic, order,reasoning, science etc. I dont force myself to read i literally, the thing jumps out at me, its ALIVE. Its only thanks to big bang/deep time pounding on us relentlessly in the media that people try to smuggle x amount of time in there. Without radioisotopes (which measure decay rate, then you have to have faith that "the present is the key to past", which it isnt, because of Noahs flood) there is nothing for deep time to cling to, again radiosotopes arnt 'evidence' per say. As i read on youtube just before "scientists knew the earth was old before radiometric dating", thats right, they had their apriori axioms before any 'evidence' came up (radiometric dating) but again you must have faith that "the present is the key to the past" which it isnt if we believe genesis flood account.

(quote "mine")
"Gould ranks the development of the concept "deep time," which involved deliberately rejecting the biblical description of earth's past for nearly incomprehensible eons, with the revolutions associated with Copernicus and Darwin."

"Before James Hutton, most geological theorists had dealt only with processes of decay. The earth was created and its geologic structures just wore down through catastrophic events like weathering and especially the biblical Flood"

"The catastrophists of Lyell's day, Gould nevertheless maintains, were right all along. The literal fossil evidence of major rapid changes in previous faunas does not need to be interpreted away, as Lyell tried to do by appealing to the imperfection of the geological record"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%27s_Arrow,_Time%27s_Cycle

 

[mark kennedy]

I've given in to reading the creation account literally now. But at first I was having a problem, since there were so many conflicting "literal" interpretations out there, many of which were more interpretation than actual literal readings.

The original audience would have heard to account from the Levitites, one of the 12 tribes of Israel. They were responsible for teaching the Law or the first five books. The historical narrative is, in effect, an oral history in written form. The history of the heavens and the earth is actually one of ten historical accounts taught, pretty much as written, by the Levites. It should be understood, when interpreting the Scriptures the literal reading is always preferred. That is the rule of thumb in exposition, not a personal preference, the reason being you don't want to import meaning to the text the author never intended.

So to solve this problem I decided to read it in a way that the original audience would have read it. If I use my presuppositions about the universe to read it, then I will get it wrong. I have to look at what the text actually says.

Sounds pretty reasonable.

There are a couple of things to note about the original audience. First, it was a culture that was mainly polytheistic. Second, the universe was water, it was a giant ocean and there was a canopy that kept the water from crashing down (obviously, why else would the sky be blue). Finally, they were more concerned with a functional ontology than a material ontology. To us, "nothing" literally means "nothing". But to them "nothing" applied to anything without a function. For example, the mud on the bottom of the nile was formless and void, it was without purpose. This is why the imagery of a potter is so powerful for that culture.

The Hebrew God (Elohim) was one, not many gods. The covenant name for God was Jehovah and the covenant made between God and the Hebrews was based on observing the law. This covenant was made at Sinai shortly after the exodus from Egypt and the Hebrews broke the covenant early and was nearly destroyed but Moses interceded and in Deuteronomy the law was repeated.

The picture of the earth before the creation week was covered in water and think clouds. Probably exactly what geologists are telling us the primordial earth was like, a reducing atmosphere (hydrogen rich), so think no light ever reached the surface.

Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? (Job 38:8-11)​

So now the universe is a giant ocean. So what does God do? He makes the heavens and the earth. The ANE readers would have understood this to be a formless functionless lump of dirt in the middle of the waters (under the waters as well) and the heavens would have been above the waters. The earth is even described as formless and void, and God is hovering over the face of the waters (in the heavens).

There are a number of myths that reflect the ANE culture, in ancient Iraq it was the picture of the Wadi, mix of fresh and salt water. The earth and even the gods were created from an elemental force personified, at any rate. I think the primordial earth is clearly described as lifeless, dark and the Spirit (Holy Spirit) was hovering above the deep as described.

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


Then He makes the light and darkness which I will skip over for now.

There was no light on the surface of the earth, that's the idea here.

Then God makes a solid dome above the earth to keep out the waters above. There are waters above the dome, and waters below the dome.

I'm all the time hearing about this dome and frankly, I don't get it. When they are talking about the atmosphere I think the idea of separation is the theme of creation. The clouds and the atmosphere are no longer blended into a gaseous, toxic mesh but the clouds float through the air sometimes drifting and sometimes raining. Above the clouds was something, what the ancients were never really sure except the sun moon and stars were there. That dome is probably just an imaginary guideline and a sense of 'separation', we would know this as the end of our atmosphere and the beginning of space.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.


Then God gave the functionless land function by gathering it together to form land.

Just as light was brought to the surface of the earth after the parting and thinning of the clouds, now the land emerges. Water now evaporates, forms into clouds and rain returns the water to the surface. Nothing more then that as far as I can tell.

9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.


Skipping a little bit again we get to the sun/moon/stars being made. They were placed in the firmament. This means there would have been water above them. Reading this literally from the ANE perspective makes perfect sense, yet no literalist was able to explain this part to me without interpreting the text (in other words, not taking it literally).

Bear in mind the image is from the surface of the earth and I think here we are talking about an establishment of the seasons. This doesn't seem to be God creating the heavenly bodies themselves as much as ordering the seasons that would be tracked using the heavenly bodies as guides.

Your getting this twisted, if you want to understand the culture realize they based their calendars on the movements of the heavenly bodies, sun (day), moon (month), stars (years) at least that was the general orientation. The average person had no way of actually recording this, clerics calculated this sort of thing and that was the ANE orientation. The biggest difference was the the God of the Hebrews 'Jehovah' was in control of the elements instead of vise versa which was a departure from the cultures around them and they certainly were not permitted to worship the forces of nature. In the Hebrew culture this was idolatry and Jehovah would not tolerate it.

The Hebrew culture was different in one other respect that is vital to understand. Jehovah (perhaps pronounced Yahweh), controlled the seasons and it's really as simple as that.

14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,


So looking at the structure of the universe that the creation account actually describes, and taking into consideration how the immediate audience would have literally read it, there's a few conclusions I've come to.

The Levetical priesthood would have understood this in two ways, one as the history of the heavens and the earth and prescribed feasts associated with the changing seasons. They would have tracked this carefully and as a result would have tracked the movements of the heavenly bodies. One of the oldest collections of a record of the movement of the stars was from Egypt, still considered the oldest science in the world, astronomy. The Old Testament went around this by attributing to Jehovah, the ability to order the universe.

God was more concerned with correcting their theology than giving a science lesson. He made it clear that there was only one God. He didn't even use the proper words for sun and moon because in Hebrew those are words for gods. He set up the framework of the story in such a way that he made kingdoms the first three days and the kings the next three days (Light day 1 ruled by luminaries day 4, sky/water day 2 ruled by birds/fish day 5, land/vegitation day 3 ruled by man/animals day 6) and then a rest. It creates an image of a workweek for people to follow that is used later in scripture as well.

Nowhere in the account are these heavenly bodies personified, which is a natural human tendency. The Hebrews understood full well that God was in control of everything called 'god' in their world. This become important later but the Genesis account should be understood as monolithic in the sense that there is no plurality of Gods and the God of Israel was almighty (Elohim), distinct from the gods of other cultures and righteous, demanding that all the people be sanctified, that is, separated for service.

Obviously, this can't be taken as literal science. This isn't some attempt to smuggle Darwin into Christianity, it's what theologians have been saying since long before Darwin. You can't reasonably think that God made light before lights, even the early church fathers pointed that out. And why would God bother making water just to separate it later? With the modern literal view there is no point, but with the view the ANE crowd had, it makes perfect sense (the universe was a giant oceans so it had to be separated).

Science as we know it did not exist before the 17th century. The only science involved would be astronomy and for the Hebrews there was no esoteric mystery for them to unravel through the priesthood. They only needed the Hebrew priesthood to teach them the law, not to interpret the stars, sun and moon for them. Most of the Church fathers mentioned the stars and such only in passing, they had very little interest in such things. The ANE perspective as a broad category is a modernist tendency unknown in the ancient world. The average person would have been obvious to the other cultural tendencies and invariably these views were unique to regions.

The interesting conclusion I draw from this is that the YEC view isn't literal, it's actually concordism. Instead of reading it literally in the same way it was read 2,000 years ago, they adjust it to fit their modern understanding of science. In doing so a lot of the original meaning is lost. Trying so hard to make it fit science means missing out on understanding what was being said to the ancient culture.

YEC is literal, that is the whole criticism of it. What you are doing is redefining it assigning a new name, 'concordism' which is absurd. The age of the earth from a YEC is based on a literal reading of the begats, nothing more. This is exactly how it would have been understood by the ancient Hebrews who would not have given it a second thought. Christians right up until the concordism of Darwinism would not have had a different view of it and certainly didn't from everything we know of them

You are importing a modernist rationalization to the text, that is anything but a literal interpretation and the criticism of YEC is a much more substantive rejection of the concordance of TE. The TEs are not blending, they are selling out to the 'sciences' of our day to the point where modernist academics are dominant.

This is just the first half of the first of 3 chapters. I'll leave it at this for now so this isn't too long. For those who don't agree with me I don't expect to change your mind, I just hope you'll put in the effort to understand my view better.

That was not a literal interpretation, you just redefined the term. I believe this OP to be a bait and switch, nothing more. Your a theistic evolutionist, in case your confused about that you should understand, I am not. All this business of ANE and YEC being concordism is pure undiluted TE skepticism of YEC literalism and changing the words around changes nothing.

For an actual literal reading of the text try this one:

Genesis 1 Creation Week

 

[Philis]

Science comes after the fact, like science hinges upon the axiom that "In the beginning God created" without that there is no logic, order,reasoning, science etc.

Yes, I believe that the creation account teaches us that God made everything.

I dont force myself to read i literally, the thing jumps out at me, its ALIVE. Its only thanks to big bang/deep time pounding on us relentlessly in the media that people try to smuggle x amount of time in there.

I'm not trying to smuggle any time in there, just reading it the way the ancient audience would have.

Sorry for not being interested in the science, I'm here for the theology discussion.

 

[Philis]

The picture of the earth before the creation week was covered in water and think clouds.

Nowhere in the creation account does it say the earth was covered in thick clouds. You are adding that so that it fits your current cosmology while ignoring the cosmology it was written with. That's not reading it literally, that's concordism. You're changing the meaning to fit your assumptions.

Probably exactly what geologists are telling us the primordial earth was like, a reducing atmosphere (hydrogen rich), so think no light ever reached the surface.

Or who shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, as if it had issued out of the womb?When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,And brake up for it my decreed place, and set bars and doors,And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed? (Job 38:8-11)
​

This doesn't seem to be speaking of creation.

There are a number of myths that reflect the ANE culture, in ancient Iraq it was the picture of the Wadi, mix of fresh and salt water. The earth and even the gods were created from an elemental force personified, at any rate. I think the primordial earth is clearly described as lifeless, dark and the Spirit (Holy Spirit) was hovering above the deep as described.

Yes, and there are many many more ways it reflects ANE culture that I didn't go into.

I'm all the time hearing about this dome and frankly, I don't get it. When they are talking about the atmosphere I think the idea of separation is the theme of creation. The clouds and the atmosphere are no longer blended into a gaseous, toxic mesh but the clouds float through the air sometimes drifting and sometimes raining. Above the clouds was something, what the ancients were never really sure except the sun moon and stars were there. That dome is probably just an imaginary guideline and a sense of 'separation', we would know this as the end of our atmosphere and the beginning of space.

What you need to do is read it literally. According to Strong's Concordance the firmament is a solid dome. According to all ancient literature I've read, The sky was thought to be solid, or at the very least it was thought of as a tent. The bible doesn't mention air or atmosphere, it says the waters above were seperated with a solid dome. I'm just reading it literally.

Just as light was brought to the surface of the earth after the parting and thinning of the clouds, now the land emerges. Water now evaporates, forms into clouds and rain returns the water to the surface. Nothing more then that as far as I can tell.

It has meaning to the ancient people because the formless void was made into something. It's a meaning that tends to be lost on modern literalists.

Bear in mind the image is from the surface of the earth and I think here we are talking about an establishment of the seasons. This doesn't seem to be God creating the heavenly bodies themselves as much as ordering the seasons that would be tracked using the heavenly bodies as guides.

That's your interpretation, not a literal reading. It says He made the heavenly bodies and placed them in the firmament. Read it literally.

Your getting this twisted, if you want to understand the culture realize they based their calendars on the movements of the heavenly bodies, sun (day), moon (month), stars (years) at least that was the general orientation. The average person had no way of actually recording this, clerics calculated this sort of thing and that was the ANE orientation. The biggest difference was the the God of the Hebrews 'Jehovah' was in control of the elements instead of vise versa which was a departure from the cultures around them and they certainly were not permitted to worship the forces of nature. In the Hebrew culture this was idolatry and Jehovah would not tolerate it.

What is it you think I'm twisting? I agree that the bible makes it clear that God made all of these things, as opposed to the beliefs of the surrounding cultures that thought all of these things were gods.

The Hebrew culture was different in one other respect that is vital to understand. Jehovah (perhaps pronounced Yahweh), controlled the seasons and it's really as simple as that.

Yes, I agree.

The Levetical priesthood would have understood this in two ways, one as the history of the heavens and the earth and prescribed feasts associated with the changing seasons. They would have tracked this carefully and as a result would have tracked the movements of the heavenly bodies. One of the oldest collections of a record of the movement of the stars was from Egypt, still considered the oldest science in the world, astronomy. The Old Testament went around this by attributing to Jehovah, the ability to order the universe.

I agree.

Nowhere in the account are these heavenly bodies personified, which is a natural human tendency. The Hebrews understood full well that God was in control of everything called 'god' in their world. This become important later but the Genesis account should be understood as monolithic in the sense that there is no plurality of Gods and the God of Israel was almighty (Elohim), distinct from the gods of other cultures and righteous, demanding that all the people be sanctified, that is, separated for service.

Yes, you are agreeing with me. There is a lot of meaning in the way it was written that addresses some of the issues they had, such as how it explains that there is only one God and does not personify the heavenly bodies. We are agreeing with each other.

Science as we know it did not exist before the 17th century. The only science involved would be astronomy and for the Hebrews there was no esoteric mystery for them to unravel through the priesthood. They only needed the Hebrew priesthood to teach them the law, not to interpret the stars, sun and moon for them. Most of the Church fathers mentioned the stars and such only in passing, they had very little interest in such things. The ANE perspective as a broad category is a modernist tendency unknown in the ancient world. The average person would have been obvious to the other cultural tendencies and invariably these views were unique to regions.

Alright.

YEC is literal, that is the whole criticism of it. What you are doing is redefining it assigning a new name, 'concordism' which is absurd.

No, the YEC view is not literal, they like to think they are but they are interpretting the text, not reading it literally. A literal reading gives an ancient cosmology that we know isn't true. That alone is enough of an indication that it is meant to be a theology lesson, not a science lesson.

The age of the earth from a YEC is based on a literal reading of the begats, nothing more. This is exactly how it would have been understood by the ancient Hebrews who would not have given it a second thought.

So they didn't use people to represent groups?

Christians right up until the concordism of Darwinism would not have had a different view of it and certainly didn't from everything we know of them

Day-age and OEC sound like concordism, but of the TEs I know that understand the story in it's context it isn't concordism. Concordism is when you try to force science into the text so that the bible matches our scientific knowledge. You seem to be the one who is doing that, not the TEs.

You are importing a modernist rationalization to the text, that is anything but a literal interpretation and the criticism of YEC is a much more substantive rejection of the concordance of TE.

Please explain how I am doing that.

That was not a literal interpretation, you just redefined the term.

Please explain. In what way is my interpretation non-literal? Simply making vague charges against me without explaining them won't pass.

I believe this OP to be a bait and switch, nothing more. Your a theistic evolutionist, in case your confused about that you should understand, I am not. All this business of ANE and YEC being concordism is pure undiluted TE skepticism of YEC literalism and changing the words around changes nothing.

But you agree with me on most of the points I was making!!! We see the same meaning in the text. How is this part of some evil conspiracy? Nothing about this view is for or against any particular view of science.

For an actual literal reading of the text try this one:

Genesis 1 Creation Week

I'll give that a read and reply to it.

 

[ptomwebster]

I've given in to reading the creation account literally now. But at first I was having a problem, since there were so many conflicting "literal" interpretations out there, many of which were more interpretation than actual literal readings.

So to solve this problem I decided to read it in a way that the original audience would have read it. If I use my presuppositions about the universe to read it, then I will get it wrong. I have to look at what the text actually says.

...

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

....

Hebrew not English, you need to become aware of the Hebrew or you will miss important words and phrases that make a big difference. Also be aware of what the rest of Scripture says about the beginning. What does Isa 45:18 say: For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

The word "was" in verse 2 is better translated "became," And the earth became without form ....

Now skip down to verse 28, just after He had created man, God says for them to "replenish the earth" meaning it was "plenished once before."

 

[Philis]

Hebrew not English, you need to become aware of the Hebrew or you will miss important words and phrases that make a big difference. Also be aware of what the rest of Scripture says about the beginning. What does Isa 45:18 say: For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

The word "was" in verse 2 is better translated "became," And the earth became without form ....

Now skip down to verse 28, just after He had created man, God says for them to "replenish the earth" meaning it was "plenished once before."

I take it you are OEC?

 

[mark kennedy]

Nowhere in the creation account does it say the earth was covered in thick clouds. You are adding that so that it fits your current cosmology while ignoring the cosmology it was written with. That's not reading it literally, that's concordism. You're changing the meaning to fit your assumptions.

Nonesense, it's called a cross reference and the only concordism going on here is the theistic evolutionists throwing out random corrections and condescending personal remarks. I have assumed nothing and I have studied the Scriptures for better then 30 years. The text is clear that there was darkness over the face of the deep, what would you expect that to be except clouds?

This doesn't seem to be speaking of creation.

Yea right, did you ever even read Job.

Yes, and there are many many more ways it reflects ANE culture that I didn't go into.

It's baseless anyway, the modernist wants to reduce the Scriptures to myth and metaphor the ANE clutch phrase is just the latest version of the same tired skepticism.

What you need to do is read it literally. According to Strong's Concordance the firmament is a solid dome. According to all ancient literature I've read, The sky was thought to be solid, or at the very least it was thought of as a tent. The bible doesn't mention air or atmosphere, it says the waters above were seperated with a solid dome. I'm just reading it literally.

Stop pretending you care what the word actually means. We have been over this a dozen times and you are oblivious to the literary features and how a concordance actually works. The Stong's will give you a short definition but the power of the Strong's is in the cross references.

It has meaning to the ancient people because the formless void was made into something. It's a meaning that tends to be lost on modern literalists.

Thought you were a literalist, but no wait, you just changed with that word means. What it means for something to be formless and void is that it is formless and void. The imagery is that of an empty, lifeless planet and since the Spirit was hovering over the face of the deep the logical inference is that the surface of the earth was covered with water. If not, then why would it be a part of creation to separate the land from the water. The first day of creation starts with 'Let there be light', why would you need light unless it was dark and why would it be dark without clouds.

It is amazing how theistic evolutionists can be so convinced of their own superiority by simply not being creationists.

That's your interpretation, not a literal reading. It says He made the heavenly bodies and placed them in the firmament. Read it literally.

I have always read it literally and I really don't need you condescending corrections to understand the text as written. What you need to do is actually listen to someone who knows exactly what it says and then come to whatever conclusions you like instead of being a self proclaimed authority of literalism by your own endorsement.

What is it you think I'm twisting? I agree that the bible makes it clear that God made all of these things, as opposed to the beliefs of the surrounding cultures that thought all of these things were gods.

Your twisting the clear meaning of the text. there is a progression for the first three days, to the next three days. The text is crystal clear that the earth was covered in water and darkness, every scholar worth his salt has emphasized this. You will never get past the first few lines at this rate.

No, the YEC view is not literal, they like to think they are but they are interpretting the text, not reading it literally. A literal reading gives an ancient cosmology that we know isn't true. That alone is enough of an indication that it is meant to be a theology lesson, not a science lesson.

NONESENSE! YEC is clearly the most literal and literate view of the text, we are constantly being condemned as ignorant for that very reason. You have done great violence to the expressed reason for Genesis, notice the similarity of Genesis to Genealogy, that is no accident. Have you ever noticed all the Genealogies in Genesis, that's because it's a book of the histories of man and there are ten of them. They descend into sub-categories later but presently you are looking at the generations (history) of the heavens and the earth with the generations (history) of man coming up in the next chapter.

DONT PONTIFICATE TO ME WHAT IS A LITERAL INTERPRETATION!!! You have no idea what you are talking about. Theistic evolution is concordism and deism in it's most pristine form because they whole heartedly embrace the modernist assumption of naturalistic causation all the way back to the Big Bang and they are 100% in lock step with modern science and academics without the slightest criticism for the atheistic materialism that pervades it.

So they didn't use people to represent groups?

Here we go again...

Day-age and OEC sound like concordism, but of the TEs I know that understand the story in it's context it isn't concordism. Concordism is when you try to force science into the text so that the bible matches our scientific knowledge. You seem to be the one who is doing that, not the TEs.

A YEC and OEC perspective fits the evidence perfectly fine except with regards to assumptions that transcend all of time and space. With regards to time it transcends all of natural history and God as cause is never permissible because most of them are atheists. So when the YEC or OEC suggest God as even a designer they are immediately condemned as ignorant. This has nothing to do with a literal reading of the text, this is the modernist onslaught against any inference of God from the Big Bang to the present day. What they have categorically denied is God as Creator and this philosophy has made it's way into the church under many a guise and many a pretense. There is no conflict between YEC or OEC with regards to the genuine article of science only the arguments of science, falsely so called.

Please explain how I am doing that.

You have explained very little.

Please explain. In what way is my interpretation non-literal? Simply making vague charges against me without explaining them won't pass.

I don't need your approval lady, and I certainly don't intend to conform a the clear meaning of the text to your random clutch phrases.

But you agree with me on most of the points I was making!!! We see the same meaning in the text. How is this part of some evil conspiracy? Nothing about this view is for or against any particular view of science.

I agree with nothing you are saying because you have abandoned the text. The themes are separation and God acting in divine fiat at the inception of life on this planet. There are only three times Genesis 1 describes creation ex nihilo, with regards to the origin of the universe, living creature and the soul of man. So far you have been dead wrong on what is being described as far as the soul of Adam and the character of the firmament. You haven't been able to make a single point stick and made outrageous indictments against a theological view of origins that has been uniformly literal in it's interpretation of Genesis 1 throughout Church history.

Theistic evolutionist change the meaning of words on a whim, just as you change the meaning of 'literalism'. I have never appreciated the duplicity and certainly am not going to be preached to about what it means to be a literalist when I have been defending that view for years.

I'll stop now but believe me when I tell you, you are a theistic evolutionist who couldn't find a literal interpretation with a road map.

I'll give that a read and reply to it.

Pop off with something like you did here and your really not going to like my reaction.

 

[Philis]

The text is clear that there was darkness over the face of the deep, what would you expect that to be except clouds?

Darkeness is an absence of light. Since light was created after this the darkness is really just the absense of light. There is no need to add clouds to it unless you are trying to force a scientific understanding on it (concordism).

Yea right, did you ever even read Job.

Yep

It's baseless anyway, the modernist wants to reduce the Scriptures to myth and metaphor the ANE clutch phrase is just the latest version of the same tired skepticism.

Was Jesus reducing his message to parables? Using words like "reducing" doesn't mean it's actually a bad thing.

Also, ANE context is not the latest version, it's the oldest version. The latest version I've heard is that the darkness was caused by thick clouds and that God didn't really create the lights on day 4, He just made them appear. Can you find any early theologians who supported that?

Stop pretending you care what the word actually means. We have been over this a dozen times and you are oblivious to the literary features and how a concordance actually works. The Stong's will give you a short definition but the power of the Strong's is in the cross references.

You continue to make assertions without explaining them. Firmament literally means a solid expanse.

The Catholic Encyclopedia
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Firmament

You may not trust Wikipedia, but check out their sources
Firmament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thought you were a literalist, but no wait, you just changed with that word means. What it means for something to be formless and void is that it is formless and void. The imagery is that of an empty, lifeless planet and since the Spirit was hovering over the face of the deep the logical inference is that the surface of the earth was covered with water. If not, then why would it be a part of creation to separate the land from the water.

The earth was in the universe, which was a giant mass of water. The firmament seperated the waters and provided space between them. At that point there was an ocean over the formless earth. Then the waters gathered together so that dry land would appear. That is what it literally says, that is how the ANE audience would have understood it. Please show me where I am wrong.

The first day of creation starts with 'Let there be light', why would you need light unless it was dark and why would it be dark without clouds.

This doesn't make any sense. If there is no light, then it would be dark, regardless of whether or not there are clouds.

I have always read it literally and I really don't need you condescending corrections to understand the text as written. What you need to do is actually listen to someone who knows exactly what it says and then come to whatever conclusions you like instead of being a self proclaimed authority of literalism by your own endorsement.

Would you like references to theologians on the matter? I couldn't be bothered to link each point to a source, but if it would make you feel better I could. This isn't MY view, it's a context that has been discussed for a couple millenia.

On the other hand, your view is unique to you. Every literalist here sees it differently than you do in some way.

Your twisting the clear meaning of the text. there is a progression for the first three days, to the next three days. The text is crystal clear that the earth was covered in water and darkness, every scholar worth his salt has emphasized this. You will never get past the first few lines at this rate.

That's right, the earth was covered in water and darkness. That agrees with what I explained. But you want me to be wrong so you're having a hard time understanding what I'm actually saying.

DONT PONTIFICATE TO ME WHAT IS A LITERAL INTERPRETATION!!! You have no idea what you are talking about. Theistic evolution is concordism and deism in it's most pristine form because they whole heartedly embrace the modernist assumption of naturalistic causation all the way back to the Big Bang and they are 100% in lock step with modern science and academics without the slightest criticism for the atheistic materialism that pervades it.

Why do you keep addressing a TE view? Can't you respond to my view instead since I'm the one you're talking with?

There is no concordism on my part. If there is please point it out.

A YEC and OEC perspective fits the evidence perfectly fine except with regards to assumptions that transcend all of time and space. With regards to time it transcends all of natural history and God as cause is never permissible because most of them are atheists. So when the YEC or OEC suggest God as even a designer they are immediately condemned as ignorant. The text is literal in it's pristine form but loose enough in it's orientation to allow for various scenarios, settings and processes. In in no way diverges from a literal interpretation.

I am reading it literally. What's your point?

You have explained very little.

You're right. I've just scratched the surface here but instead of asking me any follow up questions you just try to assert that I am wrong. Even though we have actually agreed on a lot when it comes to ANE context, you still feel the need to show me that I am wrong in some way. Unfortunately this often results in you attacking a TE position instead of mine.

I agree with nothing you are saying because you have abandoned the text.

Actually we agree on a lot, go back and read my first response to you where I repeat "I agree" several times.

The themes are separation and God acting in divine fiat at the inception of life on this planet.

See, we also agree that that is a theme

There are only three times Genesis 1 describes creation ex nihilo, with regards to the origin of the universe, living creature and the soul of man. So far you have been dead wrong on what is being described as far as the soul of Adam and the character of the firmament. You haven't been able to make a single point stick and made outrageous indictments against a theological view of origins that has been uniformly literal in it's interpretation of Genesis 1 throughout Church history.

I have given reference to the meaning of the word firmament, you haven't responded to that other than going "nuh-uh". If you can elaborate I would love to learn more about the Hebrew.

If you think that your literal version of the creation account has been accepted by everyone throughout church history then I don't think you're familiar with church history.

I'll stop now but believe me when I tell you, you are a theistic evolutionist who couldn't find a literal interpretation with a road map.

I don't accept evolution so you are wrong. I am looking at how various theologians have interpreted scripture since long before Darwin. You haven't actually shown me how my interpretation isn't literal other than by applying your own non-literal interpretation (example, adding clouds as the cause of darkness instead of attributing darkness to the absense of light, since light was literally created after).

 

[Matariki]

 

[ptomwebster]

I take it you are OEC?

I have no idea what an oec is. I am a student of Scripture and I know how to read.

 

[mark kennedy]

Darkeness is an absence of light. Since light was created after this the darkness is really just the absense of light. There is no need to add clouds to it unless you are trying to force a scientific understanding on it (concordism).

There is every reason to and there is no need to resort to some scientific mumbo jumbo that is irrelevant. Accuse me of concordism again...

Yep

Was Jesus reducing his message to parables? Using words like "reducing" doesn't mean it's actually a bad thing.

Whatever.

Also, ANE context is not the latest version, it's the oldest version. The latest version I've heard is that the darkness was caused by thick clouds and that God didn't really create the lights on day 4, He just made them appear. Can you find any early theologians who supported that?

Theologians spend very little time on Genesis 1, historically debate has been focused on the length of the term indicated by 'yom' the Hebrew word for day. As far as what the earth was before creation people don't generally go around speculating which is all this discussion really is.

You continue to make assertions without explaining them. Firmament literally means a solid expanse.

The Catholic Encyclopedia
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Firmament

I know what it is...

You may not trust Wikipedia, but check out their sources
Firmament - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know what it means, I have been over it with a fine tooth comb on more then one occasion. Thanks, but don't hold your breath waiting for me to honor your shallow criticism with more then a passing remark again.

The earth was in the universe, which was a giant mass of water. The firmament seperated the waters and provided space between them. At that point there was an ocean over the formless earth. Then the waters gathered together so that dry land would appear. That is what it literally says, that is how the ANE audience would have understood it. Please show me where I am wrong.

The part where you have a clue what an ANE audiance would have understood. All we have from the time period that is not part of a dead culture is the Hebrew account of Creation. All we know of their understanding of the text is found in Job, the Psalms and Isaiah and the few other places the creation is mentioned. The description is fine except for you continual corrections of me when I give a virtually identical description. That is a classic sign of the modernist skepticism that now comes under the guise of something called Theistic Evolution.

This doesn't make any sense. If there is no light, then it would be dark, regardless of whether or not there are clouds.

This is getting pointless.

Would you like references to theologians on the matter? I couldn't be bothered to link each point to a source, but if it would make you feel better I could. This isn't MY view, it's a context that has been discussed for a couple millenia.

No point

On the other hand, your view is unique to you. Every literalist here sees it differently than you do in some way.

There is no such thing as a literalist, the literal reading of the passage is that God created the heavens and the earth prior to the 6 days of creation. Then God created life on this planet inside a 6 day period. Stop making up words and pretending to be an authority.

That's right, the earth was covered in water and darkness. That agrees with what I explained. But you want me to be wrong so you're having a hard time understanding what I'm actually saying.

I understand that you come right out the shoot accusing me of concordism which is inflammatory to say the very least. Then you have the nerve to tell me how to read the Genesis account of creation literally which is absolutely asinine. Now you want to tell me I don't understand what you mean which is just plain wrong, I understand perfectly.

Why do you keep addressing a TE view? Can't you respond to my view instead since I'm the one you're talking with?

Because you are a theistic evolutionist. These are people who do nothing but correct and insult Creationists. You are in fact a stereotypical instant authority on any subject. With all your vigor you proclaim yourself a literalist which would put you at variance with every TE who has ever posted here and yet, you criticize only Creationists. You are pretentious, nothing more.

There is no concordism on my part. If there is please point it out.

Why, you have never justified you inane accusations, why should I?

I am reading it literally. What's your point?

Your not reading it at all, that's my point. You just ridicule and correct Creationists, because your a theistic evolutionist and that's all they know how to do.

You're right. I've just scratched the surface here but instead of asking me any follow up questions you just try to assert that I am wrong. Even though we have actually agreed on a lot when it comes to ANE context, you still feel the need to show me that I am wrong in some way. Unfortunately this often results in you attacking a TE position instead of mine.

You picked up that ANE phrase from reading TE literature on the subject. You spring it here trying what you must think is a cleaver and novel approach, it's not, it's just pretentious. You are a theistic evolutionist and you are fooling no one with the possible exception of yourself.

Actually we agree on a lot, go back and read my first response to you where I repeat "I agree" several times.

You agree here and there after you have made pointless indictments which is the practice of all TEs.

See, we also agree that that is a theme

a little late for that.

I have given reference to the meaning of the word firmament, you haven't responded to that other than going "nuh-uh". If you can elaborate I would love to learn more about the Hebrew.

I would love it if you learned anything about the Hebrew.

If you think that your literal version of the creation account has been accepted by everyone throughout church history then I don't think you're familiar with church history.

You haven't got a clue about Church history.

I don't accept evolution so you are wrong. I am looking at how various theologians have interpreted scripture since long before Darwin. You haven't actually shown me how my interpretation isn't literal other than by applying your own non-literal interpretation (example, adding clouds as the cause of darkness instead of attributing darkness to the absense of light, since light was literally created after).

Typical theistic evolutionist rhetoric. You don't believe in evolution and you are a literalist but all you do is insult creationists. It's called Theistic evolution and all you are doing is changing the meaning of words and correction people on things you know nothing about.

The trolls must be on vacation, now we are getting Trojan Horse arguments. I will admit, despite the superficiality of the whole thing it's at least inventive.

We are done here Philis, thanks for the exchange.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[gluadys]

Hebrew not English, you need to become aware of the Hebrew or you will miss important words and phrases that make a big difference. Also be aware of what the rest of Scripture says about the beginning. What does Isa 45:18 say: For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

The word "was" in verse 2 is better translated "became," And the earth became without form ....

Now skip down to verse 28, just after He had created man, God says for them to "replenish the earth" meaning it was "plenished once before."

You are right in your first sentence. The English translation from the Hebrew can sometimes be misleading, so the primary reference must be to the Hebrew.

So your comments on Gen. 1:28 are incorrect because they are based on one English translation, not on the Hebrew. The Hebrew verb here conveys the idea of be filled, fulfilled, accomplished, satisfied with no idea of repetition. (Consult Strongs to confirm this.)

And in 1611, the "re-" prefix in English sometimes carried the notion of emphasis rather than repetition so the sense is really "fill completely" . This, apparently, was the reason the KJV translators used it. As far as I know the only place we still use that in modern English is in the phrase "refried beans" which are not fried twice, just thoroughly fried.

 

[Philis]

I have no idea what an oec is. I am a student of Scripture and I know how to read.

It means old earth creationist.

 

[ptomwebster]

gluadys

Isa 45:18 say: For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

 

[Philis]

Darkeness is an absence of light. Since light was created after this the darkness is really just the absense of light. There is no need to add clouds to it unless you are trying to force a scientific understanding on it (concordism).

There is every reason to and there is no need to resort to some scientific mumbo jumbo that is irrelevant. Accuse me of concordism again...

Let's simplify this and start with this one point. Light did not exist until God created it. The bible says when God created light and it says that there was darkness before He created the light. Ergo, the darkness is a result of there being no light. That makes perfect sense, and it is the most plain literal reading. It is also how it would have originally been literally read. Concordism is when you try to fit scripture to scientific understanding. Nothing about what I just said fits the definition of Concordism.

On the other hand, you have added thick clouds to that picture. It seems that the reason for that is that you are not looking at this through the cosmology it was written with, but rather you are trying to fit it to our current cosmology. You aren't even reading it literally; Not only have you added clouds but when the bible says that God made light you don't think it actually means that, you give it a different meaning that is new. Don't pretend that you have some long standing theological view on this, I challenge you to find anyone from before a century ago that interpreted it the same way.

What you're doing is you are adding thick clouds to the text because of your scientific understanding of the universe. You are also changing the creation of light to the appearance of light to fit your understanding of the universe. That is the very definition of concordism. I'm sorry if you are offended by that, but that's what it is, plain and simple.

Since this seems to be quite a shock to you to learn this, I would like to offer you a hug, we are still both brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

[Philis]

gluadys

Isa 45:18 say: For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

Does somebody here think that He made the earth in vain? Why did you post this verse?

 

[samaus12345]

Phillis a number of scientists have different views/model of what the firmament was. Kent Hovind has the "Hovind" theory where there was a canopy of water surrounding the earth and during Noahs flood it collapsed. Russel Humphreys has it further out into the universe.

 

[Philis]

Phillis a number of scientists have different views/model of what the firmament was. Kent Hovind has the "Hovind" theory where there was a canopy of water surrounding the earth and during Noahs flood it collapsed. Russel Humphreys has it further out into the universe.

I'm more interested in the meaning of the text itself. A canopy of water makes no sense from a literal point of view. The water was above the firmament, and the stars were in the firmament. I don't see how a canopy of water fits the scriptures, but I'd be open to hearing more from you on that if you can explain it.