The Redundant Focal Point

[philadiddle]

It seems that lately all of the threads in this forum keep coming back to the same point of contention; namely, that the creation account is (or isn't) a response to other ancient near eastern cosmogonies. Every conversation seems to be the same. A part of scripture is questioned, the TEs explain how it ties into ANE cosmology and mythology to give it meaning that is compatible (and the basis of) the rest of the bible. The YECs play linguistic gymnastics to try to make sense of things like water being above the stars, or whether the story must be literal for the passage to retain its meaning. While the TEs seem to have no problem explaining any passage in the creation account, YECs often end up saying "nuh-uh" in a very wordy way.

The interesting thing is that in this forum, as well as books produced with the layman in mind, it must be justified why we would compare the bible with its immediate culture. Yet in acedamia, in all of the theological peer reviewed journals nobody ever tries to justify it because it is simply common sense to do so.

If there are any YECs out there who are struggling with this, I can assure you that you will find more meaning in the creation account by understanding it in light of the author's immediate surroundings at the time it was written. That doesn't mean you have to accept evolution, this has nothing to do with science. Understanding the creation account in that way is not a "pro" evolution interpretation, so don't be scared about that. Please don't shield yourself from the things God was trying to say in the first few chapters of Genesis by wasting your time trying to make it scientific.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

If God's Word can't transcend and speak to people across cultures and time, can it really be God's Word?

 

[philadiddle]

If God's Word can't transcend and speak to people across cultures and time, can it really be God's Word?

I agree but what does that have to do with this? It is speaking to us now.

 

[shernren]

I have to agree with AnswersInHovind's point, or at least what I see it to be. Let's look at a simplified diagram of hermeneutics:

(Here "contemporary" means those contemporary to the writing of Scripture; calling them "ancient" puts far too much of a gap between them and us, their descendants.)

Yes, I agree that TEs and academia are doing well by relating the contemporary context of Scripture to how its contemporaries would have read it (the black arrow). They are doing well in elucidating the green arrow. However, if TEs stop there, and then scold our creationist brethren for not coming over, I fear we are doing them a disservice; if academia stops there, then it is being woefully irrelevant, and deserves to stay in those ivory towers it loves so.

For, to be blunt (in stating a truism), our context is not their context. The contemporary context of Genesis 1-11 is Marduk and Enuma Elish, the Egyptian cosmogonies and the ancient pantheons. Fair enough. But how much use is it for us to learn about them? After all, nobody worships Marduk today. Our context is A Brief History of Time; our context is Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould and Answers in Genesis; our context is the Holocaust and 9/11.

We need to connect the dots; we need to fill in the blue arrows and show people how both contemporary readings and modern context come together to shape our modern readings of the Bible. For example, it is standard academic fare that Genesis 1 is a "demythologizing" of creation. Creation is now no longer the messy aftermath of rivaling deities in cosmic warfare; it is the workmanship of a single, omnipotent deity, imposing His will on a creation which joyfully fulfills His commands. All well and good.

But nobody reads Enuma Elish today; the modern myth of creation is best encapsulated by A Brief History of Time and its "warpath" statement: "The universe is all that was, is, and ever will be." (Or was that from Sagan's Cosmos?) What does Genesis 1 have to say to that? How does the interaction between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish relate to the Christian response to Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins? What does the orderliness of creation have to say to modern humanity's wanton destruction?

These are the questions that TEs need to answer, or at least look into, before we can credibly make the assurances that philadiddle makes in the OP (that Genesis 1-11 is "more meaningful" under our interpretations). It's still all too true that academic theology can be very good at tearing down the superstructures of faith without building up viable alternatives.

 

[Voice in the Desert]

If you're trying to be intellectually honest, summarizing and mischaracterizing the oppositions view point in your own words really ain't.

If you're trying to be belligerent and clueless keep it up.

 

[Siyha]

I have to agree with AnswersInHovind's point, or at least what I see it to be. Let's look at a simplified diagram of hermeneutics:

(Here "contemporary" means those contemporary to the writing of Scripture; calling them "ancient" puts far too much of a gap between them and us, their descendants.)

Yes, I agree that TEs and academia are doing well by relating the contemporary context of Scripture to how its contemporaries would have read it (the black arrow). They are doing well in elucidating the green arrow. However, if TEs stop there, and then scold our creationist brethren for not coming over, I fear we are doing them a disservice; if academia stops there, then it is being woefully irrelevant, and deserves to stay in those ivory towers it loves so.

For, to be blunt (in stating a truism), our context is not their context. The contemporary context of Genesis 1-11 is Marduk and Enuma Elish, the Egyptian cosmogonies and the ancient pantheons. Fair enough. But how much use is it for us to learn about them? After all, nobody worships Marduk today. Our context is A Brief History of Time; our context is Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould and Answers in Genesis; our context is the Holocaust and 9/11.

We need to connect the dots; we need to fill in the blue arrows and show people how both contemporary readings and modern context come together to shape our modern readings of the Bible. For example, it is standard academic fare that Genesis 1 is a "demythologizing" of creation. Creation is now no longer the messy aftermath of rivaling deities in cosmic warfare; it is the workmanship of a single, omnipotent deity, imposing His will on a creation which joyfully fulfills His commands. All well and good.

But nobody reads Enuma Elish today; the modern myth of creation is best encapsulated by A Brief History of Time and its "warpath" statement: "The universe is all that was, is, and ever will be." (Or was that from Sagan's Cosmos?) What does Genesis 1 have to say to that? How does the interaction between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish relate to the Christian response to Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins? What does the orderliness of creation have to say to modern humanity's wanton destruction?

These are the questions that TEs need to answer, or at least look into, before we can credibly make the assurances that philadiddle makes in the OP (that Genesis 1-11 is "more meaningful" under our interpretations). It's still all too true that academic theology can be very good at tearing down the superstructures of faith without building up viable alternatives.

You can't turn Genesis 1 into Mt. Carmel. It was not written to counter modern day evilution and naturalism (although in a roundabout way it certainly can!)

You claim that academics is great at tearing stuff down, but never presents viable alternatives. This is a false claim. A very very false claim. In academic Christianity, you cannot cut something down without presenting an alternative and have people recognize you. To say, "I don't know what it is, but I know its not that!" is extremely rare in academia. Want to know what an alternative is?

Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish don't really interact much. Most of the interaction comes from Enuma Elisha, the Baal Cycle, and 2 others (an egpytian and some no name civilization that I can't remember).

Lets focus just on Genes 1 and Enuma Elish.
In Enuma Elish, there is no creation ex nihlo. The cosmos already exist, but in a "primordial chaos." Creation happens when the gods make order from the chaos. Additionally, creation is a result of war among the gods. Man is an after thought, put there to take care of the world because the gods are too lazy. There is a lot of similar imagery between Genesis and Enuma Elish: for example, after Marduk defeats the sea god, Tiamat, he cuts Tiamat in half. He takes one half to make the oceans, and the other half to make the waters in the sky. A dividing of the waters to ocean and sky are very popular in ancient near eastern cosmologies.

Now back to Genesis:
God does not merely create from the chaos, He CREATES that chaos. (the empty void is better rendered chaotic void based on extra-Biblical hebrew texts use of the word. It can be argued that it simply means empty because that is how it is used in the only other 2 places in the Bible that it occurs, but one of those uses is referring back to Genesis 1, making it unable to help defining it. There are, I think 4, extra Biblical uses of the word, 3 of which are chaos, 1 of which is empty.)

Yahweh does not need other gods, nor is there any conflict or accidents in creation. Everything is done by his own, intentional, majestic power.

Man is not an afterthought. He is the pinnacle of God's creation, and given the earth in stewardship rather than forced labour.

There is a lot more in the text, but that is I think a good start.

Its not the similarities between Genesis and other accounts that we should be focusing on, but the contrasts between them. That is where the powerful statements of the author lie.

The opening chapters of Genesis are there to establish a theological framework of man and Yahweh in which the history of the Israelites can take place.

So how does this address your context? Just as the ancient, secular world had its own view of creation, so the modern secular world. The Bible presents creation in the way the ancient people thought it to happen, but showed Yahweh at its core and driving force, in a way more powerful than any of the other cultures could have imagined.

Likewise, while Dawkins and Sagan claim nature is godless and there is no need for him, they fail to see Yahweh as the driving force behind their discoveries, and thousands of Christian scientists who work in biology and geology and other fields where they believe in evolutionary models do see God at work.

Genesis 1 speaks of a powerful God that is counter to everything the ancient world believed gods were like. It sets Him apart and establishes His identity in an unforgettable way. Likewise, we have a God unlike anything the world has known outside Him. We have a God with the patience and artistry to mould and craft the world over millions of years to achieve his masterpiece in mankind. Sagan and Dawkins see the paint brushes, but they miss the painter.

God's natural revelation should not conflict with his special revelation, yet in the case of YEC it does. There is an alternative view of creation that allows Genesis 1 to be true, and the things God has revealed through creation to also be true.

The "more meaning" comes into place because it takes the emphasis off of the action of creation, and puts it onto the one who is creating. But if you push a literal historic view onto Genesis 1, you expect a Mt. Carmel showdown with science that just can't win. The Bible doesn't exist to refute naturalism via scientific explorations.

 

[philadiddle]

I have to agree with AnswersInHovind's point, or at least what I see it to be. Let's look at a simplified diagram of hermeneutics:

Does understanding it light of it's original context make it less meaningful to us? Does ignoring its original context make it more meaningful to us? My intention isn't to say that it's only useful to read it in it's original context. It's to say that reading it as a science is useless.

(Here "contemporary" means those contemporary to the writing of Scripture; calling them "ancient" puts far too much of a gap between them and us, their descendants.)

But they were ancient!

Yes, I agree that TEs and academia are doing well by relating the contemporary context of Scripture to how its contemporaries would have read it (the black arrow). They are doing well in elucidating the green arrow. However, if TEs stop there, and then scold our creationist brethren for not coming over, I fear we are doing them a disservice; if academia stops there, then it is being woefully irrelevant, and deserves to stay in those ivory towers it loves so.

But understanding it's original context makes it more meaningful to us. So by understanding the black arrow, we automatically increase our understanding of the red arrow. Coming at it strictly from modern context gives us interpretations like concordism.

For, to be blunt (in stating a truism), our context is not their context. The contemporary context of Genesis 1-11 is Marduk and Enuma Elish, the Egyptian cosmogonies and the ancient pantheons. Fair enough. But how much use is it for us to learn about them? After all, nobody worships Marduk today. Our context is A Brief History of Time; our context is Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould and Answers in Genesis; our context is the Holocaust and 9/11.

It's very useful to learn about it's context. I was at a church function a few weeks ago and I was talking to a guy about the meaning of the hero's names in the other flood mythologies, and how Noah's name had a completely meaning. To continue my train of thought, it would have led us to understand how God feels about us, and it gives it a very personal meaning. However, the guy I was talking to said "...because the bible is telling them how it really happened." My point is, that trying to make it scientific is not as personal as trying to understand the truth claims it was making in light of its original context.

We need to connect the dots; we need to fill in the blue arrows and show people how both contemporary readings and modern context come together to shape our modern readings of the Bible. For example, it is standard academic fare that Genesis 1 is a "demythologizing" of creation. Creation is now no longer the messy aftermath of rivaling deities in cosmic warfare; it is the workmanship of a single, omnipotent deity, imposing His will on a creation which joyfully fulfills His commands. All well and good.

I agree.

But nobody reads Enuma Elish today; the modern myth of creation is best encapsulated by A Brief History of Time and its "warpath" statement: "The universe is all that was, is, and ever will be." (Or was that from Sagan's Cosmos?) What does Genesis 1 have to say to that? How does the interaction between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish relate to the Christian response to Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins? What does the orderliness of creation have to say to modern humanity's wanton destruction?

Many of the truth claims still carry over. When we understand that it's not a scientific account of creation, but rather the claim that the one true God made the universe, then it is just as applicable to us in our context as it was to them in their context. Reading it as science in our context makes Christianity into a farce.

These are the questions that TEs need to answer, or at least look into, before we can credibly make the assurances that philadiddle makes in the OP (that Genesis 1-11 is "more meaningful" under our interpretations). It's still all too true that academic theology can be very good at tearing down the superstructures of faith without building up viable alternatives.

But we have looked into those questions. Maybe I haven't taken the time to write a small book on this particular forum, but the information is out there. But you'll never get to the answer to your queries when the possibility of Genesis being tied to ANE cosmology isn't even considered in the first place.

 

[Siyha]

Another great example of looking at the ancient near east and relating it to scripture is Elijah. Long story short since I would like to do something other than talk on forums tonight, studying ancient near eastern religions, specifically the Baalism found in Ugarit which is the same Baal type god that Elijah battled against, we find that Baalism was quite similar to Yahwism. The people who started worshipping Baal probably didn't think they were doing anything wrong. When Elijah says, "Stop waving between two opinions. If the LORD is God, serve him. if Baal is God, serve him." the people are speechless because they didn't know it had to be a choice! The story becomes a warning against syncretism, a very relevant topic for today's churches.

As we continue on with the Elijah/Elisha narratives, we see yahweh actually owned the entire ancient near eastern pantheon, not just baal, but the whole of the pantheon. Yahweh establishes that He alone is God, and these systems of religion that seemed like they worked well with Him were false.

 

[philadiddle]

If you're trying to be intellectually honest, summarizing and mischaracterizing the oppositions view point in your own words really ain't.

If you're trying to be belligerent and clueless keep it up.

Again, we come to the same place we come to in every other thread. The TEs talk about the context of scripture and the YECs say "nuh-uh". Though in your particular response you went a step beyond that and made it into a personal attack. Why are you scared of understanding scripture in its original context?

 

[shernren]

But understanding it's original context makes it more meaningful to us. So by understanding the black arrow, we automatically increase our understanding of the red arrow.

(emphasis added) There's the rub: it isn't automatic. It isn't even easy. I can say with confidence that it isn't automatic, because of the response of some liberal Christians to Genesis 1-11: it was a polemic against ancient Canaanite deities; nobody worships ancient Canaanite deities today; therefore nobody needs Genesis 1-11 today.

Supplying contemporary context to Biblical passages is incredibly helpful, but there is always the risk that the more we emphasize contemporary context, the more we particularize the Biblical text to the contemporary situation, with the result that we seem to deny its universal relevance. It takes conscious effort to re-relate the Bible to today, after we've worked so hard (and validly, too) to relate it to its first context.

In short, it takes exactly the kinds of posts that Siyha and you have subsequently written. So my work is done. I rest my case.

 

[philadiddle]

In short, it takes exactly the kinds of posts that Siyha and you have subsequently written. So my work is done. I rest my case.

Your point was never clear to begin with. Maybe you could explain how we should read Genesis 1-3 in light of "A brief history of time" and "the blind watchmaker".

 

[Siyha]

Wow! I really have nothing to say to that because it makes way more sense than anything I've ever said. So ima pretend it proves my point instead! (even though it addressed all my concerns)

 

[Siyha]

(emphasis added) There's the rub: it isn't automatic. It isn't even easy. I can say with confidence that it isn't automatic, because of the response of some liberal Christians to Genesis 1-11: it was a polemic against ancient Canaanite deities; nobody worships ancient Canaanite deities today; therefore nobody needs Genesis 1-11 today.
)

True! They don't worship canaanite dieties anymore! So we can through out Elijah and Elisha as well.

We should also ditch Ezra and Nehemiah. How many of us are going around building walls and temples?

Christian's aren't under the old covenant anymore, so it looks like we don't need the story of Abraham.

None of us fall under any rituals where will have super strength if we don't cut our hair. Looks like we don't need Samson.

You know what? Lets just throw out the whole Old Testament. If we have to take more than 2 minutes to apply a text to our modern lives, its obviously not the word of God and definately not worth it. If we can get fed from a 30 second devotional, why put work into anything? No passage should need more than 1 paragraph to explain. All those pastors who preach expository sermons and take 40-60 minutes to explain one passage and apply it to modern lives are wasting their time.

Marcionism FTW!

Lets also say everyone who disagrees with us is "liberal" to establish a nice polarization that allows us to reject anything they say without looking at it. If we assume they are liberal, then their motives are obviously not in seeking the truth, but of selfish human desire based on a secular worldview. Stupid latte drinking liberals with their "books" and "ancient Hebrew". If God thought that studying Hebrew could make somebody understand the Bible a little more, he would have built us all with an inherant understanding of it the second we convert. Honestly. People need to leave more room for the Holy Spirit to its work through our personal subjective interpretations.

 

[shernren]

Wow. Just wow. I've seen creationists build me strawmen before, but I've never had an evolutionist make me walk through a field of scarecrows.

First off, I have no major quarrel with (theological) liberals in general. I read just about anything I can get my hands on, from Billy Graham to Robert Farrar Capon. I've read atheists who foam at the mouth saying that their atheist buddies are raving lunatics for pretending that humans are anything more than overglorified animals. On the other end of the spectrum, I have a dog-eared copy of Science and the Bible by Ken Ham sitting in my cupboard, as well as Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys which I read through when I was 15. So do me a favor and don't tell me that I'm trying to polarize people.

I just speak the truth as it is. Bishop Spong has said before that Genesis is "pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense". That's at least one liberal for whom understanding context makes Genesis less, not more, relevant. Closer to home we had here, a few weeks ago:

What i meant was that if the old jewish traditions were reliable enough to base our beliefs on then God wouldn't have needed to introduce christianity because Judaism would have sufficed.The fact is that the is the word of MAN, and although I believe the New Testimate is a good bedrock for christianity the old Testimate should be taken with a handful of salt.Lets consider the fact that Genesis is only in the Bible because a small group of 4th century preists and emperor Constantine felt a familiar creation story could make christianity a little more pagan friendly.

So no, connecting Genesis with ANE mythology does not automatically make it more relevant to today's world. In fact, there are those for whom it becomes less relevant.

Secondly, I'll be the first to say that understanding the Bible takes time. I've spent more than five years on this forum now unraveling what the Bible has to say about science and creation. I still don't fully get it. To answer philadiddle: if I fully knew how to read Genesis 1 in light of A Brief History of Time, I would have written ten books about it by now. There are clear principles, sometimes there are flashes of inspiration, but there are also still many questions surrounding any possible Christian philosophy of science.

And yes, your posts did address my concerns. Thank you very much.

 

[Voice in the Desert]

Again, we come to the same place we come to in every other thread. The TEs talk about the context of scripture and the YECs say "nuh-uh". Though in your particular response you went a step beyond that and made it into a personal attack. Why are you scared of understanding scripture in its original context?

Actually all the personal attacks are coming from you, which is maybe why people don't enjoy discussing with you.

Just a thought.

 

[Siyha]

Wow. Just wow. I've seen creationists build me strawmen before, but I've never had an evolutionist make me walk through a field of scarecrows.

First off, I have no major quarrel with (theological) liberals in general. I read just about anything I can get my hands on, from Billy Graham to Robert Farrar Capon. I've read atheists who foam at the mouth saying that their atheist buddies are raving lunatics for pretending that humans are anything more than overglorified animals. On the other end of the spectrum, I have a dog-eared copy of Science and the Bible by Ken Ham sitting in my cupboard, as well as Starlight and Time by Russell Humphreys which I read through when I was 15. So do me a favor and don't tell me that I'm trying to polarize people.

I just speak the truth as it is. Bishop Spong has said before that Genesis is "pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense". That's at least one liberal for whom understanding context makes Genesis less, not more, relevant. Closer to home we had here, a few weeks ago:



So no, connecting Genesis with ANE mythology does not automatically make it more relevant to today's world. In fact, there are those for whom it becomes less relevant.

Secondly, I'll be the first to say that understanding the Bible takes time. I've spent more than five years on this forum now unraveling what the Bible has to say about science and creation. I still don't fully get it. To answer philadiddle: if I fully knew how to read Genesis 1 in light of A Brief History of Time, I would have written ten books about it by now. There are clear principles, sometimes there are flashes of inspiration, but there are also still many questions surrounding any possible Christian philosophy of science.

And yes, your posts did address my concerns. Thank you very much.

yeah you're right. the word "liberal" is a bit of a button for me, so that was a little overboard. The overwhelming majority of my experience with the word was like what my rant described, and I shouldn't have projected that onto your statement.

But the rest isn't straw men, at least not based on the limited information you post. I have not seen much reason for any of your statements. You reject how I showed the text to be relevant by sidestepping the application and looking at simply the canaanite myth aspect, something that is a dominante function of the Elijah/Elisha stories. Yet we find relevence in those today.

What is the relevance of a literal historic view?

I would not rely on Spong too much as a spokesperson for much. He is not just liberal, he is hyper often-borders and sometimes crosses into universalism liberal. With that being said, I would be curious to see the rest of the context of your quote. He does not say there directly that it is less relevant, but you have infered that from his words. I would like to see where he goes with that statement as I'm sure it was not made in isolation.

The text does become more relevant with a non-literal historic approach because it takes the focus off of the baggage the passage currently carries with the pressure creationists have put on it to be science, and puts it onto the theological messages the text wants to teach.

Again we ask, what is relevant about a literal historic view?

*edit
I'm going away for a while and not sure if I will have access to the forums. If this thread hasn't moved on much from here I'll rejoin, but if its another 30 posts in, I'll probably stay out of it. I'm sure if I don't make it back to this thread we'll ahve opportunity to talk about this with each other again in other threads.

-Blessings on your week!

 

[philadiddle]

Actually all the personal attacks are coming from you, which is maybe why people don't enjoy discussing with you.

Just a thought.

What personal attack did I make in this thread?

Is the following a personal attack: If you're trying to be belligerent and clueless keep it up.

 

[philadiddle]

Wow. Just wow. I've seen creationists build me strawmen before, but I've never had an evolutionist make me walk through a field of scarecrows.

Alright, I'll take a step back and ask with sincerity, what strawman did I make?

First off, I have no major quarrel with (theological) liberals in general.

Do you think that my view of theology is "liberal"? What makes it "liberal"? (Again, I'm asking sincerely)

So no, connecting Genesis with ANE mythology does not automatically make it more relevant to today's world. In fact, there are those for whom it becomes less relevant.

I agree that if someone is critical of the bible, or if your name is Bart Ehrman, then the original context may not automatically make it more meaningful. I do still hold to the position that for the people on this forum that I talk to, if they are who they appear to be, it will help their relationship with God grow.

Secondly, I'll be the first to say that understanding the Bible takes time. I've spent more than five years on this forum now unraveling what the Bible has to say about science and creation. I still don't fully get it. To answer philadiddle: if I fully knew how to read Genesis 1 in light of A Brief History of Time, I would have written ten books about it by now. There are clear principles, sometimes there are flashes of inspiration, but there are also still many questions surrounding any possible Christian philosophy of science.

So if it takes so much time to understand it doesn't that undermine your persistence that it needs to be accessible to everyone in every culture? After all, most people don't spend the time we do on this subject.

I need to tone down my posts, been some crazy days lately and I think it showed on the forums....

 

[shernren]

(to phil: the field of scarecrows comment was directed solely at Siyha. I wasn't in the mood to re-quote his entire post again and in retrospect I should have realized that I provided insufficient context. I'm sorry if I fazed you with that.)

I'm guessing some people don't know where I'm coming from. I'm a typical card-carrying Christian evolutionist. I prefer to be labeled an evolutionary creationist, but TE will do just fine. I tend to sit on the uncomfortable line between liberal and conservative viewpoints. I believe in the infallibility of Scripture, but also in the possibility of accommodation to human scientific error in its composition; what exactly I believe about Adam and Eve occasionally varies with the phases of the moon and the results of my honors simulations, but I tend to speak about them as if they were real people, for the simple reason that if sin is an intrusion into God's good creation then there must surely have been first sinners, and Adam and Eve is the name that tradition has given to them.

I think of "liberal" and "conservative" as two poles of a spectrum rather than a dichotomy. Most Christian evolutionists tend to be more liberal than conservative; that suits me just fine.

I fully agree that a liberal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 makes more sense of it than a strict, literal, conservative interpretation of it.

What I disagree on is a matter of presentation. I, as much as you, would argue that a liberal interpretation is more sensible and relevant. But I think that simply giving the ANE context of Genesis 1-11 will not automatically bring a creationist even one step closer to accepting that interpretation. Nor should we expect it to.

This phenomenon isn't just limited to liberals. You can see it operating in creationists too. In fact, this is a good article to read on the issue: Is the raqiya' a solid dome? Even if you disagree with it, it's important to know how creationists feel on the matter. I'll quote it at length to demonstrate what I'm talking about:

Where the line must be drawn is before the implication that inerrancy is not compromised by reading a solid sky into Genesis 1, and allowing no other interpretation. It does not do to say that ‘God has sometimes allowed his inspired penman to advert to the scientific concepts of their own day.' Seely confuses adaptation to human finitude with accommodation to human error — the former does not entail the latter.

As I know all too well, having spent several years confronting critics of the Bible, such ‘allowances’ as Seely asserts easily open the door to ridicule of the inspired Word, and the critics are correct to see such rationalizations as Seely’s as totally invalid.

It also opens the door to those who claim that the Bible writers’ teaching on morality was also a reflection of ‘the scientific concepts of their own day’. For example, was their teaching against adultery and homosexual acts in ignorance of the modern scientific ‘fact’ that such behaviour is ‘in the genes’, programmed by evolution? This is hardly a caricature, since some liberals already use such arguments,http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/firmament.asp#r8 showing that Seely’s attitude is the top of a perilous slippery slope. (Of course, it is fallacious to claim that behaviour is completely controlled by genes, and the ‘gay gene’ finding has been strongly questioned.)

Rather than wave the white flag over inerrancy with this compromise over raqiya‘, it is better served, under this third option, to realize that the inspired author of Genesis was allowed to use the only terms available to him in his language to describe natural phenomena, but was not allowed to offer anything more than the vaguest, most minimal descriptions of those phenomena, thereby leaving nearly everything unsaid about their exact nature. Genesis 1 was perfectly designed to allow that interpretation which accorded with actual fact, for it ‘says nothing more than that God created the sky or its constituent elements’ while remaining ‘completely silent’ about what those elements were. It only depended upon where one started: if one starts with the presumption of a solid sky, one will read into the text a solid sky. If one starts with a modern conception, the text, as we shall see, permits that as well.
​

(emphases added) It's a very interesting picture the creationist paints here. God (as recommended by Holding ) would have restricted the author of Genesis 1 to nothing more than "the vaguest, most minimal descriptions" of natural phenomena. "Nothing, mind you, that will so much as let it slip that you live among a people who believe that the sky is a great galumphing bowl over your heads which is covered blue with water!"

The creationist Henry Higgins is doing his best to scrub the authorial Eliza Doolittle of that embarrassing ANE accent in science, even if he can't teach her quantum physics and the Big Bang. And if you've watched My Fair Lady (or know what it's about) you'll immediately know what the creationists are up to. They don't want her peasant origins to be known. They want to take her to the Embassy Ball and show her off to all the gawking atheists, boasting that they will not be able to tell her origins.

In short, they are afraid that the peasant Eliza Doolittle - the Bible as it was first written and read - will be irrelevant in society. And their fears are entirely valid and natural.

Now, of course they are entirely wrong. Eliza Doolittle, the Cockney flower girl, was entirely full of charm and wit and relevance long before her transformation into proper-speaking lady. We know that, and we are right to tell creationists that. But it won't do to simply assert that the peasant is better than the lady, that the ANE context is automatically much better than whatever modern whitewashing the creationists create, and expect to be heard - that would be like ending My Fair Lady after the second song!

My contention is that the argument needs to be further expounded. We need to show, not just that the Bible is steeped in ANE context, but how this is actually better than if we interpret the Bible in a modernist (or minimalist) fashion. And one of the most important ways to do that is to show that the Bible interpreted in ANE context is still very much important and relevant to today's society. We need to forestall their claims that the Bible's old-fashioned science will also lead to judgments that the Bible's morality is old-fashioned. We need to show that understanding Genesis' polemic against Marduk and the ancient myths is relevant even in today's environment with the Big Bang and evolution.

And I think that has been done later on in the thread. So I'm happy.

 

[Siyha]

(to phil: the field of scarecrows comment was directed solely at Siyha. I wasn't in the mood to re-quote his entire post again and in retrospect I should have realized that I provided insufficient context. I'm sorry if I fazed you with that.)

I'm guessing some people don't know where I'm coming from. I'm a typical card-carrying Christian evolutionist. I prefer to be labeled an evolutionary creationist, but TE will do just fine. I tend to sit on the uncomfortable line between liberal and conservative viewpoints. I believe in the infallibility of Scripture, but also in the possibility of accommodation to human scientific error in its composition; what exactly I believe about Adam and Eve occasionally varies with the phases of the moon and the results of my honors simulations, but I tend to speak about them as if they were real people, for the simple reason that if sin is an intrusion into God's good creation then there must surely have been first sinners, and Adam and Eve is the name that tradition has given to them.

I think of "liberal" and "conservative" as two poles of a spectrum rather than a dichotomy. Most Christian evolutionists tend to be more liberal than conservative; that suits me just fine.

I fully agree that a liberal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 makes more sense of it than a strict, literal, conservative interpretation of it.

What I disagree on is a matter of presentation. I, as much as you, would argue that a liberal interpretation is more sensible and relevant. But I think that simply giving the ANE context of Genesis 1-11 will not automatically bring a creationist even one step closer to accepting that interpretation. Nor should we expect it to.

This phenomenon isn't just limited to liberals. You can see it operating in creationists too. In fact, this is a good article to read on the issue: Is the raqiya' a solid dome? Even if you disagree with it, it's important to know how creationists feel on the matter. I'll quote it at length to demonstrate what I'm talking about:

Where the line must be drawn is before the implication that inerrancy is not compromised by reading a solid sky into Genesis 1, and allowing no other interpretation. It does not do to say that ‘God has sometimes allowed his inspired penman to advert to the scientific concepts of their own day.' Seely confuses adaptation to human finitude with accommodation to human error — the former does not entail the latter.

As I know all too well, having spent several years confronting critics of the Bible, such ‘allowances’ as Seely asserts easily open the door to ridicule of the inspired Word, and the critics are correct to see such rationalizations as Seely’s as totally invalid.

It also opens the door to those who claim that the Bible writers’ teaching on morality was also a reflection of ‘the scientific concepts of their own day’. For example, was their teaching against adultery and homosexual acts in ignorance of the modern scientific ‘fact’ that such behaviour is ‘in the genes’, programmed by evolution? This is hardly a caricature, since some liberals already use such arguments,http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/firmament.asp#r8 showing that Seely’s attitude is the top of a perilous slippery slope. (Of course, it is fallacious to claim that behaviour is completely controlled by genes, and the ‘gay gene’ finding has been strongly questioned.)

Rather than wave the white flag over inerrancy with this compromise over raqiya‘, it is better served, under this third option, to realize that the inspired author of Genesis was allowed to use the only terms available to him in his language to describe natural phenomena, but was not allowed to offer anything more than the vaguest, most minimal descriptions of those phenomena, thereby leaving nearly everything unsaid about their exact nature. Genesis 1 was perfectly designed to allow that interpretation which accorded with actual fact, for it ‘says nothing more than that God created the sky or its constituent elements’ while remaining ‘completely silent’ about what those elements were. It only depended upon where one started: if one starts with the presumption of a solid sky, one will read into the text a solid sky. If one starts with a modern conception, the text, as we shall see, permits that as well.
​

(emphases added) It's a very interesting picture the creationist paints here. God (as recommended by Holding ) would have restricted the author of Genesis 1 to nothing more than "the vaguest, most minimal descriptions" of natural phenomena. "Nothing, mind you, that will so much as let it slip that you live among a people who believe that the sky is a great galumphing bowl over your heads which is covered blue with water!"

The creationist Henry Higgins is doing his best to scrub the authorial Eliza Doolittle of that embarrassing ANE accent in science, even if he can't teach her quantum physics and the Big Bang. And if you've watched My Fair Lady (or know what it's about) you'll immediately know what the creationists are up to. They don't want her peasant origins to be known. They want to take her to the Embassy Ball and show her off to all the gawking atheists, boasting that they will not be able to tell her origins.

In short, they are afraid that the peasant Eliza Doolittle - the Bible as it was first written and read - will be irrelevant in society. And their fears are entirely valid and natural.

Now, of course they are entirely wrong. Eliza Doolittle, the Cockney flower girl, was entirely full of charm and wit and relevance long before her transformation into proper-speaking lady. We know that, and we are right to tell creationists that. But it won't do to simply assert that the peasant is better than the lady, that the ANE context is automatically much better than whatever modern whitewashing the creationists create, and expect to be heard - that would be like ending My Fair Lady after the second song!

My contention is that the argument needs to be further expounded. We need to show, not just that the Bible is steeped in ANE context, but how this is actually better than if we interpret the Bible in a modernist (or minimalist) fashion. And one of the most important ways to do that is to show that the Bible interpreted in ANE context is still very much important and relevant to today's society. We need to forestall their claims that the Bible's old-fashioned science will also lead to judgments that the Bible's morality is old-fashioned. We need to show that understanding Genesis' polemic against Marduk and the ancient myths is relevant even in today's environment with the Big Bang and evolution.

And I think that has been done later on in the thread. So I'm happy.

I pretty much agree with you here, with only a few minor contentions.

First, as you probably guessed was coming, was the use of terms like liberal. Perhaps it is my context in Canada rather than the US, but I don't see a "liberal" leaning or "conservative" leaning on creation. It seems to be independant of that here (of course the term liberal can be used 1000 different ways and maybe we just aren't defining it to each other).

I have never posted in a forum with the expectation of convincing a creationist of my view. If anyone is going to change their mind on such a deep subject, it won't be because an anonymous guy with the most epic Avatar you've ever seen posted something on a forum. I post mainly for lurkers and to to help myself refine and define my own views.

To have a forum conversation with anyone, not just a YEC that would go into the detail you describe would be extremely rare. My only goal in most of my posts (initially) is to show that there are viable alternatives to YEC that are still Christian and still hold the authority of the Bible. My lament is not that Christians take Genesis literally, but that they put so much time into proving it and, as I mentioned in an earlier post, try to use it as a showdown with science to prove the Bible's authority. The millions of dollars every year and hundreds of thousands of hours spent on Creationism is my siyha (hebrew word for complaint, in the context that Job uses it throughout the book).

Of course, forum culture often gets the better of me. I appreciate your calmness after my rants in this thread. (although to be fair, you weren't really saying much other than, "nope" after each post Philadiddle and I made - your point wasn't really clear till recently)

A YEC's issues with TE fall into scholarly, scientific, theological, historical, and even political. We can't address all these at once. I don't think you are calling for that either, but what I do think is that to a "lurker" (not dedicated YEC), seeing the Bible in the context of the ANE doesn't make it "automatically" more relevant, but it makes it "automatically" more viable, and peaks interest.