The TE Creation Story

[busterdog]

The fact that throughout it uses the concepts current at the time it was written.

The Bible also refers to nations that don't exist now, such as Meshech, Tubal, etc., but the context suggest the communication is directed to our age. I understand the use of current concepts. It provides an argument, but don't we want to be careful before we assume that is the end of the story?

 

[shernren]

Actually, this is really a response to the anti-inerrant position, which seems at times to place the context above the content. For some, the context of the supposed audience is about the only hermeneutic employed. Why does a YEC get busted for indulging a little in what is routinely accepted?

But why on earth would evolution have anything at all to do with any "context of the supposed audience"? In any case, I think this is a simple yes-or-no question.

So in other words, if God used evolution to create man, then God was beholden to describe it in some way to the Israelites?

 

[busterdog]

But why on earth would evolution have anything at all to do with any "context of the supposed audience"? In any case, I think this is a simple yes-or-no question.

Was God beholden. He absolutely was.

This is the argument about whether God puts limits upon himself. He told Israel where they came from. Thus, he was beholden to provide them with the truth. The question of whether he was required to give them a Word of God in the first place is pointless, since He did, and, unlike man, He is unchanging.

I understand that the other answer is, "To say that He did something or said something, simply means He did it, not that He did it because He was compelled to do so as a being subject to conditions." That is a reasonable response. Fijian and I went round and round on that one. The whole idea of a self-existent or self-conditioned entity sort of makes your question unhelpful, with all do respect -- that is, its an interesting question, but I don't see that it leads to a valid criticism.

The question becomes what did He say and who did He say it to. The idea that you can limit hermeneutics based upon a presumed (underline "presumed") audience is to really just beg the question about what the Word of God. (We are the audience. Our science. Or time. Along with all the others.) That is not a question that yields to modern literary/historical critical methods.

 

[gluadys]

The Bible also refers to nations that don't exist now, such as Meshech, Tubal, etc., but the context suggest the communication is directed to our age.

Can you provide some examples where "the context suggests the communication is directed to our age"?

 

[shernren]

Was God beholden. He absolutely was.

This is the argument about whether God puts limits upon himself. He told Israel where they came from. Thus, he was beholden to provide them with the truth. The question of whether he was required to give them a Word of God in the first place is pointless, since He did, and, unlike man, He is unchanging.

And of course the Word of God came - Jesus, not the Bible.

In any case. So you are saying that once God tells us that He is the Creator of the world, He is obligated to describe the creation of the world in such a way that we should be able to deduce the exact scientific processes He employed from His description?

Now here's an exercise in lateral thinking: your 5-year-old child asks you where he came from. How do you answer?

 

[busterdog]

And of course the Word of God came - Jesus, not the Bible.

In any case. So you are saying that once God tells us that He is the Creator of the world, He is obligated to describe the creation of the world in such a way that we should be able to deduce the exact scientific processes He employed from His description?

Now here's an exercise in lateral thinking: your 5-year-old child asks you where he came from. How do you answer?

What I said was that when God speaks to the issue, He must tell the truth. You can argue about whether He has spoken to the issue and how much information is required to make up real truth. Obviously we differ greatly on how those questions are answered.

To Glaudys, in Ezekiel, God is speaking of war after Israel has been regathered and established as a nation. We could go through the list of indications that disqualify Ez. 38 as history. But, in this future battle, Gog, Magog, Rosh, Meshech, Tubal, etc. join in battle against Israel. THe Word incorporate contemporary (and probably past) cultural references with prophecy aimed quite specifically at future generations. Clearly the BIble self-consciously demands at least in part that it be read as applicable outside of its cultural context.

 

[gluadys]

To Glaudys, in Ezekiel, God is speaking of war after Israel has been regathered and established as a nation. We could go through the list of indications that disqualify Ez. 38 as history. But, in this future battle, Gog, Magog, Rosh, Meshech, Tubal, etc. join in battle against Israel. THe Word incorporate contemporary (and probably past) cultural references with prophecy aimed quite specifically at future generations. Clearly the BIble self-consciously demands at least in part that it be read as applicable outside of its cultural context.

I don't think you could have chosen a passage more appropriate for showing the opposite to the conclusion you have reached.

Other than a general denunciation of Israel's enemies and God's impending judgement on them, the passage is practically incomprehensible if you don't know who Gog is and are not acquainted with the historical nations of Magog, Meshech, Tubal, Put, Gomer and Beth-togarmah.

One thought occurred to me, as I noticed only two familiar names in the list: Persia and Ethiopia. Most other prophetic judgments against Israel's enemies name nations that are known, even if they are nations that no longer exist: Egypt, Syria, Edom, Moab, Assyria, Babylon. But what are these nations mentioned by Ezekiel? Is he perhaps referring to one or more of these nations (especially Babylon) by code as later John refers in Revelation to Rome under the name of Babylon?

Just a thought. I have no idea if it holds any water. But if there is anything to it, it would reinforce the fact that one would have to be immersed in the same culture as Ezekiel to grasp the meaning of the prophecy.

However, I think that is obvious anyway and doesn't depend on speculation about coded names.

So I don't know how you come to the conclusion that it is "aimed quite specifically at future generations"; still less (to go back to the original assertion) that "the communication is directed at our age."

It seems to me that the only age that could grasp the meaning is that contemporary with Ezekiel.

 

[HypnoToad]

So in other words, if God used evolution to create man, then God was beholden to describe it in some way to the Israelites?

I'd say God was "beholden" to get the details correct in the creation account.

 

[shernren]

What I said was that when God speaks to the issue, He must tell the truth. You can argue about whether He has spoken to the issue and how much information is required to make up real truth. Obviously we differ greatly on how those questions are answered.

I'd say God was "beholden" to get the details correct in the creation account.

When a child asks you where s/he came from, how do you answer when you don't want him/her to know about sex?

 

[HypnoToad]

When a child asks you where s/he came from, how do you answer when you don't want him/her to know about sex?

Ah, again the "ancient people were just plumb dumb" argument.

How many children (of the same age as those you'd expect in your question) are capable of constructing something like the pyramids?

 

[shernren]

Ah, again the "ancient people were just plumb dumb" argument.

How many children (of the same age as those you'd expect in your question) are capable of constructing something like the pyramids?

Actually, children aren't intellectually incapable of understanding sex. My younger brother is smart enough to navigate the Internet, but that doesn't mean I would want him to know what his reproductive organs really do. So I'm not in any way insinuating that the ancients were stupid.

Why do adults try to shield children from knowing about sex? Think about it for a moment.

 

[HypnoToad]

Actually, children aren't intellectually incapable of understanding sex. My younger brother is smart enough to navigate the Internet, but that doesn't mean I would want him to know what his reproductive organs really do. So I'm not in any way insinuating that the ancients were stupid.

Why do adults try to shield children from knowing about sex? Think about it for a moment.

Why don't you tell me why you think ancient man needed to be "shielded" from details that wouldn't be erroneous.

For example, why did they need to be "shielded" from the (supposed) fact that the sun existed before plants on earth? Or, why did they need to be "shielded" from the fact that rain existed?

 

[theIdi0t]

Why don't you tell me why you think ancient man needed to be "shielded" from details that wouldn't be erroneous.

For example, why did they need to be "shielded" from the (supposed) fact that the sun existed before plants on earth? Or, why did they need to be "shielded" from the fact that rain existed?

I think the problem your presenting is this:

Either God tells us in the bible about science, so that we come to believe in him because of science, or he tells us nothing about science so that we do not come to believe in him because of science.

If the first is true, why doesn't God provide us with real science, such as the inner workings of the womb, or about DNA, and Genetics, if such things were clearly written about in the bible, then very few people would not believe in the God of Abraham.

But would we believe in God, the way that he wants us to believe in him?

Would we internalize his will, or would we just move around our hands, and do the actions. Would we love the poor that we feed, or would we just feed them?

Would we clean the outside of the cup, and not know how to clean the inside of it?

Would we focus on what is deeper than the science, or just the science?

Here we are discussing the science of Genesis, but how many of us are asking what it means?

Here we are discussing the dimensions of the ark, but how about the degree to which we are to love our neighbor, our enemy?

If God wanted to provide us with science in the Word, he would have provided it for us, but he did not, because he wants to keep us moving in the direction of cleaning the inside of the cup, from sacrifice to mercy, from the love of God, to what is like unto it: "love your neighbor as yourself", from fasting in sackcloth and ashes, to the fasting he truly desires: undoing the yokes of oppression, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry... (Isaiah 58).

Perhaps you can answer why God is silent on science better, and I doubt you'll respond and tell us, as other creationist have: he's not silent, Isaiah told us the earth is round."

 

[HypnoToad]

I think the problem your presenting is this:

Either God tells us in the bible about science, so that we come to believe in him because of science, or he tells us nothing about science so that we do not come to believe in him because of science.

If the first is true, why doesn't God provide us with real science, such as the inner workings of the womb, or about DNA, and Genetics, if such things were clearly written about in the bible, then very few people would not believe in the God of Abraham.

But would we believe in God, the way that he wants us to believe in him?

Would we internalize his will, or would we just move around our hands, and do the actions. Would we love the poor that we feed, or would we just feed them?

Would we clean the outside of the cup, and not know how to clean the inside of it?

Would we focus on what is deeper than the science, or just the science?

Here we are discussing the science of Genesis, but how many of us are asking what it means?

Here we are discussing the dimensions of the ark, but how about the degree to which we are to love our neighbor, our enemy?

If God wanted to provide us with science in the Word, he would have provided it for us, but he did not, because he wants to keep us moving in the direction of cleaning the inside of the cup, from sacrifice to mercy, from the love of God, to what is like unto it: "love your neighbor as yourself", from fasting in sackcloth and ashes, to the fasting he truly desires: undoing the yokes of oppression, clothing the naked, feeding the hungry... (Isaiah 58).

Perhaps you can answer why God is silent on science better, and I doubt you'll respond and tell us, as other creationist have: he's not silent, Isaiah told us the earth is round."

Irrelevant.

This discussion is not about the level of science, or lack thereof, in Genesis.

The level of science has no bearing on whether an account is accurate or not. For example, the New Testament contains very little science, yet most Christians take it as historical fact.

The discussion is about what a YEC would expect Genesis to be like if TE were correct. Since YEC's read Genesis as historical, if it were to describe TE, we would STILL expect the details to be historically accurate, regardless of the level of "scientific" detail that is there or not there.

 

[Scotishfury09]

Why don't you tell me why you think ancient man needed to be "shielded" from details that wouldn't be erroneous.

For example, why did they need to be "shielded" from the (supposed) fact that the sun existed before plants on earth? Or, why did they need to be "shielded" from the fact that rain existed?

I think the problem is you harping on the word "shielded." I don't think anyone was trying to shield anyone else in regards to knowledge about creation. I think that Moses' understanding of creation was fairly ignorant by our standards. More than likely, through God's revelation, he wrote a story for his people that they were able to relate to. I'd be willing to bet that Moses had absolutely no clue in which order creatures came into existence, maybe he did, but either way I don't think it matters much. He did, however, know that God created them all and that He created them all for a purpose.

I think shernren's analogy implies that the ancient culture was very ignorant about creation and not so much, "dumb". You don't say the child is stupid because he doesn't know how calculate the integral of a function, he just hasn't learned it yet. The ancient Hebrews were the same way, unfortunately they weren't able to access as much technology as we are today that helped us understand creation.

I think it makes much more sense for Genesis to be allegorical. It was written for that time and that culture. That culture was ignorant towards creation and so we get a creation story that is ignorant to how it really happened. Please don't assume that I think Genesis has no merit, that's not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying is that with respect to how the world came into existence, we shouldn't look to Genesis for the answers.

 

[shernren]

Why don't you tell me why you think ancient man needed to be "shielded" from details that wouldn't be erroneous.

For example, why did they need to be "shielded" from the (supposed) fact that the sun existed before plants on earth? Or, why did they need to be "shielded" from the fact that rain existed?

Ahh, but as a teacher, it is always more fun to let the students work out the details for themselves. Nevertheless, I will spoil it.

Why don't adults teach children about sex? It isn't because they are intellectually incapable of understanding it. The mechanics of sex, when you drill down to the basics, are surprisingly simple. And children even have the biological apparatus (half of it, anyway) to look at for themselves. So what would be the big deal about sex? Why is it that when a 6-year-old comes to us and asks where he came from, we reply with some piety like "from God" or "because mommy and daddy loved each other very much", or with nonsense like "the stork brought you", instead of simply pulling down pants and showing them how it works?

For starters, they are psychologically incapable of understanding sex. Not intellectually, since the basic mechanics are really quite simple. But you have to remember that before a certain age, boys think girls are slimy and icky and play with really dumb toys while girls, thinking themselves made of sugar and spice and everything nice, detest boys as stinky and disgusting and possibly the worst evil to walk the earth ever. Convince a boy that he would some day not just fall in love, and kiss, and marry, but also that he would actually want to lie down with and penetrate (in that order, hopefully) this icky alien from a different planet? Not going to happen. And try telling a girl that she would take this sort of thing lying down! Not going to work either - even though it is absolutely true.

More importantly, they are incapable of handling the moral dimensions of sex and procreation. In fact, even many adults are still incapable of handling those moral dimensions. To teach a child about sex, within a Christian moral framework, would mean to teach him the whole works about sexuality from submission between sexes to chastity in marriage to why the world tells everyone to have sex to why we shouldn't accept any of that, and right on to the edge of controversy such as whether it is acceptable or not to use birth control (particularly post-zygotic ones, such as IUDs and abortions) and reproductive technologies. A child simply hasn't made enough moral decisions of depth to understand the magnitude of these moral decisions.

More importantly, when a child asks "where did I come from?", what does s/he really need? To know the mechanics of sex? Surely not. Of course a child being put together involves sex at some point, but sex or no sex, the child needs to know that as a human s/he is made in the image of God, and has been God-sent to his/her parents, who love the child to bits. The question of "where did I come from?" is not a question about mechanical origins, it is a question about spiritual significance - a way of determining not where did I come from but "who am I?" and "what do I mean?" Neither of these questions are answered by sex. They are answered by the old patronizing cliches: you were created by God, and you are a product of mommy's and daddy's love. And that's all the answer the child needs to know even though sex is avoided with a ten-foot-long pole.

When the Israelites ask "Where did the world come from? Where did we come from?" they weren't asking about the mechanics of how the world was created. God never goes into the detail of just how He made the world. Genesis 1 narrates it on the level of "God said 'Let there be X.' And there was X. And God liked it.", which if you think about it, isn't too far at all from "Well, uhm, you're a product of mommy's and daddy's love" - no mention of intermediate stages, or processes, or even raw materials, or anything the ancients would have needed to understand the mechanics of creating a world.

And why? Firstly, because they would have been theologically incapable of understanding a God who works through naturalistic methods. Any Christian today who thanks God for the weather has to deal, whether consciously or not, with the tension between attributing good weather to a loving God and explaining it through meteorology - but such a tension only exists if meteorology is understood as a science, and the Israelites would not have been familiar with such a tension because meteorology wasn't a science for them. Not that there aren't fair-weather aphorisms by which people associate certain observations with certain weather phenomena, but the Israelites would never have understood that these things are repeatable and to some people apparently happen without supernatural intervention. Instead, the only way the Israelites could conceptualize God's presence and providence was via wrecking the laws of nature. In their books, anything they couldn't explain was an act of God, from lightning to sunrise to snow.

Would you expect God to give them the entire edifice of modern science just to make the point that God works through naturalistic means? Don't forget that a hundred and fifty years ago the very idea of the atom was still being debated. Would God have waited that long, waited for them to discover all of science (when during the time of Saul the Israelites still didn't know how to work metal properly), and then only revealed Himself and said "Look, this science you're doing here is all Mine"?

You might ask, "Why couldn't He have given them the science there and then?" Well, not just because they wouldn't have had any of the prerequisite knowledge (not understanding, mind you, but sheer data accumulated over millenia), but because they wouldn't understand it theologically. They were surrounded by nations with entire pantheons of gods who squabbled it out with miracle after miracle. Would they have been ready for a God who, 99.99% of the time, doesn't even use miracles to provide for His creation? Or would they then have gravitated to the pagan pantheons? The Israelites were fickle enough even when God was working plenty of miracles for them; how do you think they would have taken it if He had revealed to them that almost nothing, even the very origins of the universe and of life, was a miracle? Even if it was absolutely true? Would they still have understood what this God is and why He is worthy to be worshiped? They would have just abandoned Him for the Baals and Ashtoreths who openly promise miracles all the more.

But more importantly, as an answer to the question "where did we come from?", Genesis 1 answers: from God. And if you think about it, when we answer a child that s/he came "from God", we aren't saying that there was no sex - even though we would never go anywhere near sex in the description. We are saying that finding one's origin and identity in God is what's important, no matter the mechanics - whether you were conceived by your parents, or adopted, or picked off the street, or brought by the stork*, you came from God. And in the same way, in Genesis 1, the mechanics and the details are irrelevant. The point of it is that everything came from God, evolution or not.

*Apparently, in Europe there is a positive correlation between stork arrivals on the mainland and births in hospitals. There must be something afoot. The whole idea that sex brings babies must be some kind of materialistic advertisement ploy.

 

[HypnoToad]

I think the problem is you harping on the word "shielded." I don't think anyone was trying to shield anyone else in regards to knowledge about creation. I think that Moses' understanding of creation was fairly ignorant by our standards. More than likely, through God's revelation, he wrote a story for his people that they were able to relate to. I'd be willing to bet that Moses had absolutely no clue in which order creatures came into existence, maybe he did, but either way I don't think it matters much. He did, however, know that God created them all and that He created them all for a purpose.

I think shernren's analogy implies that the ancient culture was very ignorant about creation and not so much, "dumb". You don't say the child is stupid because he doesn't know how calculate the integral of a function, he just hasn't learned it yet. The ancient Hebrews were the same way, unfortunately they weren't able to access as much technology as we are today that helped us understand creation.

I think it makes much more sense for Genesis to be allegorical. It was written for that time and that culture. That culture was ignorant towards creation and so we get a creation story that is ignorant to how it really happened. Please don't assume that I think Genesis has no merit, that's not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying is that with respect to how the world came into existence, we shouldn't look to Genesis for the answers.

Again, you're talking about the level of science, which is irrelevant. It doesn't take any scientific language to say, "the sun was before plants," or, "there was rain". There is no reason to lie about the simple order of events; there is no reason to lie that there was no rain.

Shernren, your post is the same. You are going on about the scientific details, when that is not the issue. You say too much science would damage their faith, but, again, what is "too scientific" about getting the order of events correct? We're not talking about the function of DNA, we're talking about "sun before plants". We're not talking about cellular mitosis, we're talking about "there was rain".

 

[shernren]

Shernren, your post is the same. You are going on about the scientific details, when that is not the issue. You say too much science would damage their faith, but, again, what is "too scientific" about getting the order of events correct? We're not talking about the function of DNA, we're talking about "sun before plants". We're not talking about cellular mitosis, we're talking about "there was rain".

However, if the scientific details are not the issue, then why are you getting so uptight about the details? After all, if God is not communicating the science of how He did everything (which you agree), God certainly does not need to communicate the order in which He did anything - He just needs to communicate that He is Creator, and in a way that is memorable to His listeners. If that involves poetic license, so be it. Who am I to tell God what His priorities in communication should be?

If details matter so much to you, you should know that according to Genesis 1, God never created:

- flightless birds (since penguins and ostriches do not "fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens", they weren't created on day 5)
- aquatic plants (since God told the earth to "sprout vegetation ... on the earth", they weren't created on day 4)
- stars invisible to the naked eye, or dark matter, or interstellar dust (since they do not "give light on the earth", they weren't created on day 3)

Now, if you are really concerned that Genesis 1 should be accurate in all its details, you should conclude that because God did not create these things, none of these things exist.

 

[HypnoToad]

However, if the scientific details are not the issue, then why are you getting so uptight about the details?

And now you do it once again.

You keep mixing my points with science. Stop doing that.

Just because the issue isn't scientific details, does NOT mean that the issue isn't about any detail whatsoever.

You know, it is possible to be historically accurate without being "scientific". I don't know why you have to keep mixing them up, unless it's an intended deception to keep changing the focus and muddy an issue you don't want to address.

f details matter so much to you, you should know that according to Genesis 1, God never created:

- flightless birds (since penguins and ostriches do not "fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens", they weren't created on day 5)

First, these could be covered by "land animals". Second, they are definitely covered by "all the host of them" (2:1).

aquatic plants (since God told the earth to "sprout vegetation ... on the earth", they weren't created on day 4)

Covered by 2:1.

stars invisible to the naked eye, or dark matter, or interstellar dust (since they do not "give light on the earth", they weren't created on day 3)

Covered by 2:1.

And you still have not answered my question. How would knowing that there was the sun before plants, or that there was rain damage their faith, as you claim?

 

[gluadys]

Again, you're talking about the level of science, which is irrelevant. It doesn't take any scientific language to say, "the sun was before plants," or, "there was rain". There is no reason to lie about the simple order of events; there is no reason to lie that there was no rain.

Shernren, your post is the same. You are going on about the scientific details, when that is not the issue. You say too much science would damage their faith, but, again, what is "too scientific" about getting the order of events correct? We're not talking about the function of DNA, we're talking about "sun before plants". We're not talking about cellular mitosis, we're talking about "there was rain".

What we really need to get to is why there is a discrepancy between scientific observations and scripture.

Did God create plants before the sun?

If the answer is "yes", what explanation is there for scientific observations that put the existence of the sun well before the existence of plants.

If the answer is "no" is there an explanation of why scripture puts their creation in the order it does.

I don't know of any reason why the scientific observations that the sun existed before plants can be disputed. I have heard nothing but ad hoc arguments that beg the question.

On the other hand, we do have two excellent reasons for placing the creation of plants before the creation of the sun in scripture, even though the factual evidence says differently.

1. The framework intepretation which sets up the realms of nature, then fills them with inhabitants. The sun, moon and stars are inhabitants of the realms of day and night. (Plants don't count as "inhabitants" of the earth as the ancients thought of them more as a part of the earth, much as hair is a part of the animal it covers.)

2. The response to pagan creation stories. In the polytheistic accounts, the first gods to be named are the primordial gods of chaos who beget the younger gods. Then, when the younger gods rebel against the older gods, their leader and chief god is mentioned first as a matter of protocol, then the lesser gods. For example, in the Babylonian version, Marduk as chief of the younger gods is introduced before his younger siblings and other lesser gods. As it happens, Marduk was also the god of fertility and vegetation while one of his younger sisters was the goddess of the moon.

So the biblical monotheistic presentation also presents God as the creator of vegetation (not Marduk) before presenting God as the creator of the moon (not Marduk's younger sister).

So we can see that there is a logic and purposefulness to the order in Genesis 1 that would make sense to the people of the time even if it does not correspond with physical reality.

If the principal purpose of the creation account had been to provide a scientifically accurate order, I agree, that could be done in simple terms. The fact that it was not done shows that this was not the principal purpose of the account.