Thoughts on Historical Creationism?

[alexandriaisburning]

I simply asked what your notion of historicity, to use your word, would impose upon you the understanding of this specific passage? Set aside all your excuses and explanations of other's biases and lack of understanding historicity and just answer the question. Surely you've read the Scriptures and as you read the words that are printed your mind gains some sort of understanding of what those words mean. Now, you may not understand what the author intended them to mean, but you do have an understanding. What is it?

I already explained what I think it means in my previous response. I don't think the words are confusing, or that they are "code" for something else, or that they are necessarily intended to be a "metaphor" for something else (metaphor, of course, in the modern sense of the word). Like all narratives, it invites us to conjure to mind images so that we might place ourselves in the author's mind and communicate in the same mental space. My contention is simply that just because a story has "events" in it does not necessarily mean that the "events" are meant to be understood as having "absolute-happenedness", as modern assumptions about historicity would force us to believe.

Yet even in the midst of our modern biases for historicity, we nonetheless do precisely the same thing with "story" and "myth" that I am suggesting. For example, consider the "cherry tree" myth regarding George Washington. We know, of course, that on the basis of historicity it is not a recounting of actual events (and interestingly enough, the original author of the myth created it intentionally, not out of ignorance!), but rather an anecdote the communicates a moral message.

Despite its obvious lack of historicity, the myth endures in our collective understanding because 1.) it is a good story that appeals to us and 2.) it has entrenched itself within the cultural consciousness through repetition. Does the lack of historicity invalidate the myth as "truth" or "useful" or whatever other adjective might be applied? And is it at least possible that its actual nature as myth is what ingratiated it within our understanding?

Again, the rationalization of the modern, western mind is trained to eschew that which is not "historical". Nonetheless, despite our ever-present biases, the value of mythos still permeates our consciousness.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

So, you don't believe that these words were actually written on two stone tablets by the very finger of God?

God doesn't have fingers, for God is not a material being. So no, I don't believe that.

 

[rjs330]

Funny, as you certainly aren't bothered by allowing your own biases to determine the outcome.



This is ridiculous. No one is suggesting that this is what happened.

Let's take the creation myth in Genesis as an example. In its earliest form, it would have been just an oral story, passed from person to person, family to family, generation to generation. It was not necessarily written down (at least not until much greater political and religious stability and infrastructure had been established), and would have transformed over time. As cultures in close proximity traded, inter-married, and generally diffused their particular cultural distinctiveness into the broader cultural mindset, creation epics would have been rehearsed, compared, revised, and evolved into their later forms.

When the Hebrew people finally had enough political and religious stability to be able to codify their beliefs, it seems to be a very natural transition that they would take the creation stories that would have been known in the general consciousness of the people, and mold them for specific theological purposes. So while the general shape, structure, and content of the myths retain their earlier, diffused form, the creation epic within the Hebrew Scriptures would eventually become particularized to support and reinforce the theological priorities of those entrusted with that responsibility. Therefore, it is not surprising that we see within the creation epic in Genesis some of the retroactively imputed marks of a religious system (e.g., Sabbath rest) which is now stable and in need of codification.



I don't doubt you understand them "clearly", since you uncritically allow your biases to determine the conclusions before you even begin to read.



No, this has nothing to do with what we are saying. There is no amount of education required to understand the meaning of a creation myth. What most people need, rather, is to be disabused of really bad interpretations which have been foisted upon them by those who are more interested in sating their own interpretive biases.



Indeed. This is one of the reasons, as I mentioned above, that the simple and "epic" form of the creation story would have been a perfect choice for the people of the time. As they would have already had familiarity with the creation epics of other cultures, the people for whom the creation epic in Genesis was written would have had an affinity for its form and structure...a perfect story to share with friends and family, to commit to memory, and to rehearse to their children.



And there it is. Just like your counterpart, you inevitably fall back onto arguments like this. While I don't dismiss the validity of such an argument, it is certainly not a "proof" of the historicity of the Genesis creation story, nor is it any substantial justification of the biases that you are imputing to the text. Unless the Holy Spirit is a modern, western thinker, of course!

Well it's so obvious your bias is showing. You make an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims in your post. And I'm guessing you got them from other outside,sources you so,badly want to believe. How do you know the Genesis story was passed down orally and changes through the years? Where's the proof of this? Has some ancient Hebrew writings been discovered that verify this assumption?

How do you know that Moses wasn't the first guy to share this information with them? Once again you dismiss inspiration. God told the writer of Genesis what happened. The writer did not just write down some oral tradition he had been taught handed down from,others. He was inspired by God to write the truth. Your stating it was a myth is completely in error. You have no biblical evidence that it was a myth. You may have read something by some biased author, but there is no proof that Genesis is incorrect.

What we need to be disabused off is such unproven nonsense and speculation that denies the authority and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures and seeks to relegate it to some dusty old ancient,writing that is no different than any other ancient literature written by men with no affiliation to God.

The proof of the historicity of scripture is in the text itself verified by other scriptures.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Well it's so obvious your bias is showing. You make an awful lot of unsubstantiated claims in your post.

Indeed. You would know, since the whole of your argument is a giant circle.

How do you know the Genesis story was passed down orally and changes through the years? Where's the proof of this? Has some ancient Hebrew writings been discovered that verify this assumption?

I have as much proof for it as you do in suggesting that "Moses" was the first person to write down this information. Obviously, there's no way to directly validate the claim. However, the reasoning is based off of deduction of the known information, as well as by studying how stories have been transmitted and preserved throughout human history when no other means of recording them are readily available. Additionally, when we see remarkable similarities in structure, content, and style between the Genesis creation narrative and earlier, "outside" creation epics, the most logical conclusion is that there is a material correlation between them. You reject this notion, of course, because it violates your presupposition about what the nature of "inspiration" should be (yes, an invention of your own mind); however, the preponderance of scholarship and evidence suggests otherwise. This doesn't mean, of course, that the Scriptures aren't "inspired"; it only means that the definition of "inspiration" that you wish to force upon Scripture does not cohere with what we know about the origin and evolution of the Hebrew Scriptures and the contents therein.

How do you know that Moses wasn't the first guy to share this information with them? Once again you dismiss inspiration.

I don't dismiss inspiration. There is just simply no reason, from the perspective of analyzing the text, to assume "inspiration". Moreover, since we know of no other "inspired" texts, we don't really have a good set of criteria for recognizing inspired texts. Therefore, not only is the assumption of inspiration unnecessary when approaching the Scriptures as text, the actual imposition of such an assumption and "metric" is faulty as one will necessarily have to produce a definition of "inspiration" and then retroactively apply it to the analysis of the text. This is circular reasoning, something at which you have shown yourself to be quite adept.

God told the writer of Genesis what happened. The writer did not just write down some oral tradition he had been taught handed down from,others. He was inspired by God to write the truth.

Again, you can assert this proposition all you like; there is simply no way of demonstrating that it is a valid mark of the Scriptures. You keep asking for "proof" of things, but your own position is entirely incapable of the same. The understanding of the Scriptures as "inspired" can only be apprehended by faith; it is not a physical attribute of them that can be analyzed and demonstrated.

Your stating it was a myth is completely in error. You have no biblical evidence that it was a myth. You may have read something by some biased author, but there is no proof that Genesis is incorrect.

There's also no biblical evidence that it *wasn't* a myth. You can make the voices within the Scripture sound like modern, western thinkers all you like; however, when they were speaking of the creation story, there's no evidence to suggest that they shared the same presuppositions about historicity that you and I do...unless, of course, we are suggesting that the hermeneutic of the Holy Spirit is that of a modern, western thinker. In which case...how entirely convenient for you!

What we need to be disabused off is such unproven nonsense and speculation that denies the authority and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures and seeks to relegate it to some dusty old ancient,writing that is no different than any other ancient literature written by men with no affiliation to God.

This is a complete misrepresentation of what I and Speedwell have been saying. Perhaps you are jumping to hyperbole because you know you are losing this argument...such is a pretty typical tactic.

We are not suggesting that the Scriptures are "just like" the rest of ANE literature, nor that they should be ignored or "relegated" to being an "old, ancient" writing. They are, of course, "old" and "ancient". However, they are also unique, beautiful, and still speak to us from the distant past. The point, however, is that we shouldn't expect them to speak with our voices, or to fit our "categories" of thinking.

The proof of the historicity of scripture is in the text itself verified by other scriptures.

Round and a-round the circle we go...

 

[rjs330]

I'm going to heaven and you're not, because the Holy Spirit like me better than He likes you. Neener neener.

Well that came across kinda snarky.

 

[rjs330]

We must keep in mind, also, that the creation narrative in Genesis was not written for you or me. It was written for ancient people for whom the notions of "historicity" that you wish to impose upon the text would have not had the same meaning, given the differing philosophical assumptions and worldviews that they held.

Once again you offer thoughts with no evidence that the Hebrews who received the word of God didn't recognize the historicity of Genesis. Your statement that the six days could be literal then is an admission that Genesis could actually be history. It is not a myth.

 

[Speedwell]

Well that came across kinda snarky.

I think the word you were looking for is "sardonic."

 

[Speedwell]

Once again you offer thoughts with no evidence that the Hebrews who received the word of God didn't recognize the historicity of Genesis. Your statement that the six days could be literal then is an admission that Genesis could actually be history. It is not a myth.

The operative word which you ascribe to AiB here is "could" which is distinctly different from the YEC position that anything else than 100% accurate literal history is not possible, maintened with such certainty as to justify hostility towards non-YEC Christians (yourself excluded, of course.)

I think the bottom line to all of this is that your Bible doctrine can only be held by faith, not by appeal to the literary or linguistic properties of the texts. As such, it cannot be proven and imposed on the rest of Christendom, which twists the knickers of some of our YEC friends.

 

[mark kennedy]

I already explained what I think it means in my previous response. I don't think the words are confusing, or that they are "code" for something else, or that they are necessarily intended to be a "metaphor" for something else (metaphor, of course, in the modern sense of the word). Like all narratives, it invites us to conjure to mind images so that we might place ourselves in the author's mind and communicate in the same mental space. My contention is simply that just because a story has "events" in it does not necessarily mean that the "events" are meant to be understood as having "absolute-happenedness", as modern assumptions about historicity would force us to believe.

Historical narratives have literary features, which indicate the nature and intent of the events related. In historical narrative the literal interpretation is always preceded. Most of the Pentetauch is clearly historical chronologies and events, every time Moses stops in the wilderness he will review with the people where they have been and what has happened. Half of Genesis dwells on Jacob, who was also called Israel, Genesis is clearly intended to record the history and creation of Israel.

Yet even in the midst of our modern biases for historicity, we nonetheless do precisely the same thing with "story" and "myth" that I am suggesting. For example, consider the "cherry tree" myth regarding George Washington. We know, of course, that on the basis of historicity it is not a recounting of actual events (and interestingly enough, the original author of the myth created it intentionally, not out of ignorance!), but rather an anecdote the communicates a moral message.

There isn't any moral to the story if the Bible is a collection of folkloe and legend.

Despite its obvious lack of historicity, the myth endures in our collective understanding because 1.) it is a good story that appeals to us and 2.) it has entrenched itself within the cultural consciousness through repetition. Does the lack of historicity invalidate the myth as "truth" or "useful" or whatever other adjective might be applied? And is it at least possible that its actual nature as myth is what ingratiated it within our understanding?

So what are we to make of Passover, is the God of the Old Testament just another Santa Clause. Tabranacle a pointless empty tradition reminding of wilderness wanderings that never happen. So what does that tell us about baptism, is the death burial and resurrection another myth?

Again, the rationalization of the modern, western mind is trained to eschew that which is not "historical". Nonetheless, despite our ever-present biases, the value of mythos still permeates our consciousness.

So does Buggs bunny but I don't stake my hope of eternal life on it.

 

[Speedwell]

There isn't any moral to the story if the Bible is a collection of folklore and legend.

How do you know that?

BTW, keep in mind that we are specifically discussing the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Nobody maintains that the entire Bible is nothing but a collection of folklore and legends.

So does Buggs bunny but I don't stake my hope of eternal life on it.

No, we are all Christians here and stake our hope of eternal life on the sacrifice offered by Christ for us.

 

[mark kennedy]

How do you know that?

BTW, keep in mind that we are specifically discussing the first 11 chapters of Genesis. Nobody maintains that the entire Bible is nothing but a collection of folklore and legends.






No, we are all Christians here and stake our hope of eternal life on the sacrifice offered by Christ for us.

You do know Christ was crucified during Passover right? Seem like a coincidence to you? Ok let's say redemptive history from Abraham to Christ is reliable if not completely accurate. What about the New Testament witness regarding Adam and Noah for instance? Christ, Paul and Peter all speak of them, never as myth or metaphor.

 

[Speedwell]

You do know Christ was crucified during Passover right? Seem like a coincidence to you? Ok let's say redemptive history from Abraham to Christ is reliable if not completely accurate.

I'm surprised you would allow such stipulation, even for purposes of argument.

What about the New Testament witness regarding Adam and Noah for instance? Christ, Paul and Peter all speak of them, never as myth or metaphor.

And from that you conclude that they could only have been speaking of those texts as 100% accurate literal history, because that's the only kind of history ever written.

 

[rjs330]

I think the word you were looking for is "sardonic."

Nah I meant snarky.

 

[Speedwell]

Nah I meant snarky.

LOL!

 

[rjs330]

The operative word which you ascribe to AiB here is "could" which is distinctly different from the YEC position that anything else than 100% accurate literal history is not possible, maintened with such certainty as to justify hostility towards non-YEC Christians (yourself excluded, of course.)

I think the bottom line to all of this is that your Bible doctrine can only be held by faith, not by appeal to the literary or linguistic properties of the texts. As such, it cannot be proven and imposed on the rest of Christendom, which twists the knickers of some of our YEC friends.

Actually you have it backwards. I hold true to the text. It's those that claim the text doesn't mean what it says are the ones who show faith. But it's not faith in the text it's faith in every outside book except the text. The text is clear as written and supported by other scriptural text. Those that deny that are leaning on other things besides the text. From the words day and contextual analysis of the rest of scripture there is clarity.

 

[ScottA]

Historical Creationism is a view of Genesis 1 and 2 proposed by John Sailhamer that Genesis has been "bound" by modern English and it is important to understand the Creation account from the perspective of the early Hebrews.

The theory has a mix of young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and the gap theory.

Sailhamer states that the days of creation were indeed six literal 24 hour periods, but this Creation Week was the preparation of the Promised Land as the place of origin for mankind rather than the creation of the whole world.

Genesis 1:1 was God's first act of creaton where he made everything except humans during this time. According to this view, we do not know how long God took to create or how much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and the Creation Week.

This view maintains that the earth and Universe are ancient, but humanity is young and allows for a literal interpretation of the days of creation.

There was animal death prior to the Fall, but not human death as humans are a special creation.

I probably have not explained it very well, so I will leave a link explaining Historical Creationism in greater detail.

So what are your thoughts on this view? There is a link below.


http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/science-the-bible-and-the-promised-land

The problem with most interpretations of biblical creation, is that it is a narrative of physical manifestations regarding a spiritual truth...i.e., the dots cannot be connected using only the physical products born out of context. As Jesus said, "The words that I speak to you are spirit." John 6:63

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Historical narratives have literary features, which indicate the nature and intent of the events related. In historical narrative the literal interpretation is always preceded.

In what sense is the creation narrative an "historical narrative"? What is the criteria you are applying? Is an historical narrative anything that in any possible way might allude to an "event" in the "past"? If so, what would be the difference, then, between "historical" narratives and "historical" fiction? Both have "historical" features? What about mythology as a specific genre? Most mythology (the kind you probably think of, at least) bears similar literary "features" as the creation narrative in Genesis. If we are to take the latter as "historical narrative", why should we not apply the same assumptions to the former?

Most of the Pentetauch is clearly historical chronologies and events

"Clearly"? Like the list of patriarchs? The list whose numerologically structured "ages" for each patriarch bears a striking resemblance to the Sumerian kings lists? If the former is meant to be taken "as history" ("history", of course, as the modern mind comprehends it), why not the latter?

Genesis is clearly intended to record the history and creation of Israel.

No one is debating that this is an overarching motif within Genesis. What is being argued is whether the "history" being recorded was written with the same intentions as a modern historian would understand "history". If the two do not share the same philosophical foundations and worldviews, then the outcome of such "histories" might be (and will probably be!!) significantly different. So there is no reason to assume that default reading of the modern, western mind is the correct one; moreover, as it is quite certain that the philosophical foundations and assumptions regarding history (as a review of the relevant ANE literature would suggest), ARE in fact different, I would suggest that a skepticism of our initial interpretations would be advisable.

There isn't any moral to the story if the Bible is a collection of folkloe and legend.

Yes, that is certainly the conclusion I would expect from a modern, western thinker who resolves the whole of truth and meaning to the narrow, arbitrary domain of "historicity". However, the ancients had no such strictures, so we should not shackle their voices with our biases.

As I already showed in a previous post, it is possible even in the modern era for "mythos" to resonate and express meaning and truth, even though the foundations of much of our thinking would openly deny it. How much more so if the impediments of this philosophy are not there to begin with?

So what are we to make of Passover, is the God of the Old Testament just another Santa Clause. Tabranacle a pointless empty tradition reminding of wilderness wanderings that never happen. So what does that tell us about baptism, is the death burial and resurrection another myth?

Your pejorative use of "another myth" simply reinforces the point I've been making. You are so sold out to the assumptions of modern, western philosophy that you cannot even feign a moment of an attempt at objectivity to imagine how meaning and truth could be expressed apart from the criteria of "historicity".

Regarding the resurrection, whatever we might call it, it is certainly not "historical". According to historicity, we'd have to be able to establish by proofs or deduction that the event under consideration occurred. However, as a miracle, the resurrection has no phenomenological aspects that could be the subject of investigation. Therefore, by virtue of our belief in its very *actuality* (not historical actuality, but "truthful" actuality), it is removed from the domain of human knowledge and historical investigation. The only way in which we can affirm the *truth* of the resurrection of Christ is by faith; apart from faith, we are deceiving ourselves and others if we suggest that it is "historical".

So does Buggs bunny but I don't stake my hope of eternal life on it.

If you are staking your hope of eternal life on your ability to understand the Scriptures as "historical", then you are in a sad way indeed.

 

[alexandriaisburning]

Once again you offer thoughts with no evidence that the Hebrews who received the word of God didn't recognize the historicity of Genesis. Your statement that the six days could be literal then is an admission that Genesis could actually be history. It is not a myth.

No, you are deliberately misrepresenting what I said. I've said several times now that I happen to think that the word "day" certainly signifies a "literal" day; e.g., it is not a "stand-in" for some other meaning, doesn't refer to an "age", and is not "code" for anything else. In other words, I think the reader/hearer of the creation myth in Genesis was not expected to think of "day" as something else than what they would commonly think about as a "day" (sunrise to sunset, probably).

My point, however, is that the whole of the creation myth is not intended to be interpreted "historically", as if the writer was challenging the reader to affirm the "actually-happened-ness" of the events that were recorded/rehearsed. This notion of "truth is found in actually-happened-ness" is a modern one, based in our bias for scientific methodology and an over-zealous (albeit not terrible critical) assumption of "objectivity".

 

[alexandriaisburning]

The problem with most interpretations of biblical creation, is that it is a narrative of physical manifestations regarding a spiritual truth...i.e., the dots cannot be connected using only the physical products born out of context. As Jesus said, "The words that I speak to you are spirit." John 6:63

According to some in this thread, what Jesus actually meant to say was "The words that I speak to you are historical".

 

[ScottA]

The problem with most interpretations of biblical creation, is that it is a narrative of physical manifestations regarding a spiritual truth...i.e., the dots cannot be connected using only the physical products born out of context. As Jesus said, "The words that I speak to you are spirit." John 6:63

I should elaborate. The dots of physical evidence...actually take you off on a wild goose chase...birds of a feather, and all that.