The Full Spectrum of Christian Belief on Origins - where are you?

[Willtor]

Yeah, I think I ignored the Adam and Eve question in my response (too lazy to go back and check). It's a separate question from the one of how the world was created, so a single spectrum is oversimplification. I'll also note that abiogenesis does not imply deism as #8 seems pretty close to doing.

That said, it seems like no matter how you cut it, there's an historical fall -- whatever that looked like. At some point, however it comes about, humanity realizes it's made in the image of God, and at that point it has to choose to embrace that or no. Whether it's two people or a community or a set of communities spread across space and time, I don't see an obvious way around that.

 

[ob77]

Yeah, I think I ignored the Adam and Eve question in my response (too lazy to go back and check). It's a separate question from the one of how the world was created, so a single spectrum is oversimplification. I'll also note that abiogenesis does not imply deism as #8 seems pretty close to doing.

That said, it seems like no matter how you cut it, there's an historical fall -- whatever that looked like. At some point, however it comes about, humanity realizes it's made in the image of God, and at that point it has to choose to embrace that or no. Whether it's two people or a community or a set of communities spread across space and time, I don't see an obvious way around that.

As to Adam and Eve, that is simple to explain over that of creation, for we are told that before Adam, God was finished making and creating things and Adam was not created, nor made in the sense we may give it. There are 163 books of the Bible and we operate solely with the 66 most known books now. God could have tried to explain in words how things were created, but we could not read the tremendous volume, let alone actually understand it if He had. Everything is made up of atoms - highly charged particles rotating at light speed around a nucleus, and we can barely understand that, nor know what power keeps them together. I am afraid we are much too stupid to understand creation.
So, people on both sides whittle it down to the lowest common denominator. God created the universe -or- the universe simply happened. I believe the former.

 

[BobRyan]

There is currently a spectrum of belief regarding origins, and this is tied loosely to how literal one reads Scripture and/or the degree to which one is willing to allow the evidence of God’s Creation inform their beliefs *about* that Creation. We must keep in mind that every position except the one on top, the Flat-earthers, involves a certain degree of allowance of scientific knowledge to influence Scriptural interpretation.

1. Flat-earthers - believe that a plain reading of Scripture indicates that the earth is flat. Very few still hold on to this belief.

2. Geocentrists - believe that the sun and all the stars literally revolve around the earth. Still a surprising number of these around, although the movement suffered a major setback after the late 60's. They have lots of Scripture and theological bases to argue from, however, and insist that a literal reading of Scriptures requires geocentrism. Ironically, they hold young earth creationists (below) in the same light as theistic evolutionists: those who have let secular science alter their view away from a plain, literal reading of Scripture. A recent shake up over at ICR (or possibly it was AiG) occured when the group finally denounced geocentrism and a number of their contributing members quit because they were geocentrist.

3. Young Earth Creationists - believe that the earth and universe are both young (less than 10,000 years old) and that all the diversity of species is the result of special creation, based on a literal reading of Scripture (even if not AS literal as those above).

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

So then .. #3 though I think there is a gap between vs 1 and vs 2 of Genesis - so life on earth is considerably younger than the entire universe.

Bob

 

[random person]

Is it possible that the earth was in a post-catastrophic state before the creation of Eden?

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...and-the-great-flood-story-a-parallel.7877939/

I am leaning towards a poetic and metaphoric definition of Genesis, that good and evil co-existed already a la Satan and the Tree of the Knowledge of the Good and Evil.

But Adam and Eve in their initial incarnation had close fellowship with God and knew God "face to face".

I am no Ken Ham. I believe physical death existed in the Garden but that spiritual death aka sin-death did not exist in Garden prior to Adam and Eve eating the fruit.

Afterall, God walked with them in the Garden, until sin created separation between God and Adam and Eve and the pair were cast out of the Garden, in essence cast out from fellowship with God. They were separated from God in the Garden by both their sins and their spiritual deaths. They lost close and intimate fellowship with God due to their sins and their spiritual deaths.

 

[BobRyan]

Many atheist evolutionist freely admit that today is "heaven" compared to the carnage of tooth-and-claw caveman start of mankind.

Many Christians by contrast believe the Bible statement on "paradise" in Eden where mankind and the animals eat a vegetarian diet and the earth and all life on it created in a 7 day week.

Gen 1
28 God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” 29 Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; 30 and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”;

So for many Christians - today is not "heaven" compared to Eden - Gen 1:2-2:10.

 

[BobRyan]

Is it possible that the earth was in a post-catastrophic state before the creation of Eden? .

No dry land?
No sun?
No moon?
No atmosphere?

 

[random person]

No dry land?
No sun?
No moon?
No atmosphere?

The Creation Account is piece of poetry, a psalm even, it is not a scientific document.

Anyways, how did God speak to Moses when providing the revelation of creation... in verbal words? Or in text? Or in visions? Or all of the above? We can not say, can we?

But there can be made a case for the catastrophic state of the earth, in that it was formless and void and perhaps enveloped in cloud or ash cover to where both the sun and the moon had very little visibility or no visibility at all.

An issue I have with creationists and creationism, is that these scientists of questionable credentials are attempting to equip Christian laymen to debate and confront the world's academia sometimes with embarassing results see Kirk Cameron, Ken Hamm (vs Bill Nye the science guy), Ray Comfort, etc. There is no end to terrible examples of creationism posted up on YT. What about relying on the Holy Spirit?

If we want to win atheists and evolutionists over to Christ, are the creationists being too pushy, antagonistic (pugnacious), and even intolerant towards these lost souls? Are we promoting condescension towards the beloved Gospel amongst these non-believers?

 

[BobRyan]

The Creation Account is piece of poetry, a psalm even,

or is it???

Dec 14, 2014 #475

 

[n2thelight]

I would go with 4,as I feel man was never meant to be made flesh,this was done because of satan's rebellion....We walked with the dinosaurs at one time...A time when were all in our spirit bodies........

 

[BobRyan]

I think this is instructive.

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 66773735, member: 235244"]Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================[/QUOTE]

 

[gluadys]

I think this is instructive.

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 66773735, member: 235244"]Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

[/QUOTE]

Of course, it can still be a poem as well. I expect that when Tennyson wrote Charge of the Light Brigade he also intended to be true to history. We shouldn't debate poetry vs. history as if the same text cannot be both at once.

I take it then that is is not the poetic nature of Genesis 1, nor the author's intent, that leads Dr. Barr and those who agree with him to still reject that Genesis 1 is history. It is rather that as a possible history of the origins of the universe, Genesis 1 is wrong--wrong in ways the author of Genesis could not have known. (i.e. the author was not lying, but simply unaware of the actual history of the cosmos and the earth.)

 

[BobRyan]

Firstly, Genesis 1 is not a poem. It does not use verse forms. It is written in the standard literary dialect of narrative prose. It is completely devoid of poetic diction, imagery, figures of speech.

Secondly, Genesis 1 is straight-forward narrative. It talks about the real world, completely familiar to us. It itemizes the cosmic elements and terrestrial phenomena such as we observe everyday — sky, land, sea, heavenly lights, vegetation, fish, birds, and animals, including humankind. The terms “sky”, “land”, “grass”, etc., have their simple meanings. The language is not mythological, allegorical, parabolical. Genesis 1 states that God made all these things. The story is as simple as can be, straight-forward, matter-of-fact.

Thirdly, Genesis 1 is followed by other stories which read like successive chapters in a book. The narrative is continuous, with transitions rather than breaks; and it goes right on through the accounts of the patriarchs, the careers of Moses and Joshua, followed by Judges and Kings. Genesis through Kings is a single, continuous, gigantic chronicle; and all of it is the same kind of writing. It is a unified history of God and his world. As the first part, and an integral part, of that history, Genesis 1 itself is also history.

The style is simple, yet grand; the impression is majestic, overwhelming. It is a marvelous combination of plain narrative and high art. The fact that it is history should not shut our minds against its artistry. The fact that it is artistic should not soften our confidence in its truthfulness as history.

All historic accounts provide a timeline, sequence, appeal to observable elements like people, places, things, sky, land, sea. The Genesis 1:1-2:3 historic narrative being no exception.
=====================================
And as Barr points out - it is clear from "the kind of literature that it is" that the author intends to give an accurate historic account to his readers.

That some readers choose to doubt the author does not affect the text or the intent of the author.

 

[BobRyan]

By contrast - The Charge of the Light Brigade -- uses verse, rhyme, symbolism, metaphor (Not that some historic fact cannot be recorded that way - but he provides no timeline, no location, just the name of the Enemy identified)

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.

 

[Willtor]

Of course, it can still be a poem as well. I expect that when Tennyson wrote Charge of the Light Brigade he also intended to be true to history. We shouldn't debate poetry vs. history as if the same text cannot be both at once.

I take it then that is is not the poetic nature of Genesis 1, nor the author's intent, that leads Dr. Barr and those who agree with him to still reject that Genesis 1 is history. It is rather that as a possible history of the origins of the universe, Genesis 1 is wrong--wrong in ways the author of Genesis could not have known. (i.e. the author was not lying, but simply unaware of the actual history of the cosmos and the earth.)

Besides that, the general consensus, here, about the Barr quote seems to be that he is not talking about the form of literature... merely that within its context, it has literal days. BobRyan likes to quote it as though scholars support an historical reading, but that's counter-intuitive.

 

[BobRyan]

I think this is instructive.

QUOTE="BobRyan, post: 66773735, member: 235244"]Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================[/QUOTE]

BobRyan likes to quote it as though scholars support an historical reading, but that's counter-intuitive.

Your statement is made in direct contradiction to the details made in the quote by Barr.

Were we "not supposed to notice"???

Barr (as noted in my post) does "Believe" in the historicity of the Bible --- but can still admit to the "kind of literature" that it is - an historic account.

That was the part I think everyone got -- what part did you miss??

 

[gluadys]

Firstly, Genesis 1 is not a poem. It does not use verse forms. It is written in the standard literary dialect of narrative prose. It is completely devoid of poetic diction, imagery, figures of speech.

That's debatable. It uses poetic elements such as repetition and rhythm. It does not use rhyme, but no Hebrew poetry did. It is entirely possible that the days are symbolic and intentionally so--though not in the sense of symbolizing vast expanses of time. It does not use some features common to Hebrew poetry such as juxtaposed couplets or chiasmus, but as you point out the style is both simple and grand. It is at the very least highly-stylized, oratorical poetic prose.

Secondly, Genesis 1 is straight-forward narrative. It talks about the real world, completely familiar to us. It itemizes the cosmic elements and terrestrial phenomena such as we observe everyday — sky, land, sea, heavenly lights, vegetation, fish, birds, and animals, including humankind. The terms “sky”, “land”, “grass”, etc., have their simple meanings. The language is not mythological, allegorical, parabolical. Genesis 1 states that God made all these things. The story is as simple as can be, straight-forward, matter-of-fact.

And all of these are consistent with being poetry. Poems very often are narratives. All ballads, for example, are narratives. The grand epic poems of ancient civilizations are narratives. The cycle of Arthurian poems are narratives. Linguists have found that when you back-translate some of Jesus parables from NT Greek to the Aramaic in which he delivered them, they turn out to be poems. The Prodigal Son is both a narrative and a poem. (One of my high-school texts was titled "Poems: Chiefly Narrative")

And a good deal of poetry uses the plain meaning of many terms. These things are well-known to anyone who studies literature. I wish it were better known to theologians who end up making needless distinctions between history/poetry and or narrative/poetry or even worse fact/poetry as if poetry could be none of these alternates. In fact it can be all of them. So finding history or narration or fact in a text does not eliminate the possibility that it is poetry.

Nor does calling a text a poem mean that it is also fictional, non-narrative, or not about history. A text can be all of these at once.

Thirdly, Genesis 1 is followed by other stories which read like successive chapters in a book. The narrative is continuous, with transitions rather than breaks; and it goes right on through the accounts of the patriarchs, the careers of Moses and Joshua, followed by Judges and Kings. Genesis through Kings is a single, continuous, gigantic chronicle; and all of it is the same kind of writing. It is a unified history of God and his world. As the first part, and an integral part, of that history, Genesis 1 itself is also history.

There are cycles of poems too, in which each poem, though complete in itself, is also a chapter in a larger unified whole. I don't say that the other parts of the OT are all poetry though. There is a good deal of prose. What is important to note, however, is that prose need be no more, and no less, factual or historical than poetry.

The style is simple, yet grand; the impression is majestic, overwhelming. It is a marvelous combination of plain narrative and high art. The fact that it is history should not shut our minds against its artistry. The fact that it is artistic should not soften our confidence in its truthfulness as history.

Right. As I said, being poetic does not count against it being history or intended as history. And that is not the basis on which Barr and his colleagues reject it as history. They reject it as history because it is clearly not history--not in any sense that we understand what makes a narrative a history.

All historic accounts provide a timeline, sequence, appeal to observable elements like people, places, things, sky, land, sea. The Genesis 1:1-2:3 historic narrative being no exception.

Including all historic accounts that are fictional. Check out your nearest library for examples of historical fiction.

=====================================

And as Barr points out - it is clear from "the kind of literature that it is" that the author intends to give an accurate historic account to his readers.

That some readers choose to doubt the author does not affect the text or the intent of the author.

I don't think the author's primary intention was to give an accurate historic account to his readers, but I do think he probably believed that what he wrote was history; in that regard he was simply mistaken.

 

[gluadys]

Besides that, the general consensus, here, about the Barr quote seems to be that he is not talking about the form of literature... merely that within its context, it has literal days. BobRyan likes to quote it as though scholars support an historical reading, but that's counter-intuitive.

Exactly. The days in Bridget Jones Diary are literal within the context of the novel. That doesn't give them any relation to any actual days in our actual history.

 

[Willtor]

Exactly. The days in Bridget Jones Diary are literal within the context of the novel. That doesn't give them any relation to any actual days in our actual history.

Yeah, and I suspect the same thinking prevails at all "world class" universities.

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed many people do down size the Bible to the level of "Bridget Jones Diary" we get that from atheists all the time.

Interesting that Barr admits that the author of Genesis writes the historic account - given as is - to be accepted and believed by those readers of the Genesis account.

Barr dismisses all attempts to evolutionize/darwinize the text - pointing out that this is not at all what was going on there.

So when the Christian comes along and finds that even the atheists admit - the text is giving us an historic account that does not fit atheism - well the Christian has 'another choice' not open to the atheist.

 

[gluadys]

Indeed many people do down size the Bible to the level of "Bridget Jones Diary" we get that from atheists all the time.

Trying to evade the point by focusing on something else?

Interesting that Barr admits that the author of Genesis writes the historic account - given as is - to be accepted and believed by those readers of the Genesis account.

Barr dismisses all attempts to evolutionize/darwinize the text - pointing out that this is not at all what was going on there.

Oh, I agree with him entirely on these points. He was writing to his own audience in terms that he and they understood to be history. Attempts to find evolution in the text of the Bible are completely off the mark. Similarly, the bible speaks of the angels of heaven, but never of galaxies. It speaks of the movement of the sun, but never the movement of the earth. It speaks of many animals and plants of the Middle East, and even some from Africa, but never of penguins, or kangaroos, or llamas or any animal unknown to ancient Israelites. We should not try to read into the bible what is not there.

That, however, is no reason for us to reject the existence of penguins or kangaroos, galaxies or evolution. All of these things are real. But scripture does not speak of them because they were unknown to the people who wrote the scripture.

So when the Christian comes along and finds that even the atheists admit - the text is giving us an historic account that does not fit atheism - well the Christian has 'another choice' not open to the atheist.

The Christian does not have a choice to be dishonest about the historic and scientific facts that have been discovered over the last 2-3 thousand years. Whatever the biblical author believed and intended, there is no way we can today receive his work as actual history. We can receive it as what he thought was history, and also receive the teaching he wanted to impress on his audience through that "history".