What is Creation as Essential Doctrine?

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

It's actually prose, but it is clearly narrative. It's especially significant that the creation of man is described in such dramatic terms. Genesis is historical narrative, the 'begats' are a key indicator of that. How are you supposed to call the first chapter an allegory and not diminish what follows?

So I vote historical narrative, there is no good reason not to.

Because poems never serve as prefaces to larger prose works?

 

[mark kennedy]

Because poems never serve as prefaces to larger prose works?

Not poems, understand, prose is a suitable narrative form, just a few rules about the structure. Genesis 1 bears no marks of figurative language and yet it can be dismissed as allegory? Because it's written in a poetic prose does not mean it's figurative, the rest of the histories in Genesis are written in the same form. There is a meter and form, the parallelism of Gen. 1:27 for instance.

The literary form deserves serious consideration.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Not poems, understand, prose is a suitable narrative form, just a few rules about the structure. Genesis 1 bears no marks of figurative language and yet it can be dismissed as allegory? Because it's written in a poetic prose does not mean it's figurative, the rest of the histories in Genesis are written in the same form. There is a meter and form, the parallelism of Gen. 1:27 for instance.

The literary form deserves serious consideration.

Grace and peace,
Mark

First of all, I don't "dismiss" Gen 1 as an allegory. I truly believe that the full force of the text is only brought out when it is read as a seven-stanza poem and the thematic elements communicate through its poetic form are not obscured through a literal reading of the text.

Second, if you cannot see figurative language in the sun and moon ruling over the day and night, then I doubt that you're willing to see anything but literal descriptions of a series of miraculous actions.

 

[mark kennedy]

First of all, I don't "dismiss" Gen 1 as an allegory. I truly believe that the full force of the text is only brought out when it is read as a seven-stanza poem and the thematic elements communicate through its poetic form are not obscured through a literal reading of the text.

Second, if you cannot see figurative language in the sun and moon ruling over the day and night, then I doubt that you're willing to see anything but literal descriptions of a series of miraculous actions.

They are miraculous actions, I don't have my heart set on it, that's what is being described. All fifty chapters of Genesis are history, the genealogies make that abundantly clear and I'm puzzled that no matter what the evidence from Scripture or science God creating in six days is never an option.

Creation as essential doctrine has to have God creating in tangible ways, especially with regards to life. God is the starting point in Scripture, not pagan elementals.

 

[Calminian]

First of all, I don't "dismiss" Gen 1 as an allegory. I truly believe that the full force of the text is only brought out when it is read as a seven-stanza poem and the thematic elements communicate through its poetic form are not obscured through a literal reading of the text.

Second, if you cannot see figurative language in the sun and moon ruling over the day and night, then I doubt that you're willing to see anything but literal descriptions of a series of miraculous actions.

GCC, why would you think the passages about the sun and moon are poetic? We find figurative language in narratives all the time, throughout the O.T., but that doesn't make them poems. I don't see anything in the Genesis accounts, which seem to be divided by toledoth statements, remotely poetic, such as the obvious poetry we see in Job, at least in the middle chapters. There we see obvious parallelism. But the first 2 chapters of Job are obviously narrative, and read just as the accounts in Genesis read and just as any other narratives read.

It would seem to me the efforts to make Genesis poetic are based solely on the fact that we struggle believing what it records, based on other theories of history.

 

[mark kennedy]

First of all, I don't "dismiss" Gen 1 as an allegory. I truly believe that the full force of the text is only brought out when it is read as a seven-stanza poem and the thematic elements communicate through its poetic form are not obscured through a literal reading of the text.

Well that much I agree with, not really sure what the problem is.

Second, if you cannot see figurative language in the sun and moon ruling over the day and night, then I doubt that you're willing to see anything but literal descriptions of a series of miraculous actions.

After Genesis 1 the word is not used again until it describes the rule of Solomon, the Psalmist repeats the same expression in connection with God's enduring mercy.

The sun to rule H4475 by day: for his mercy endureth for ever: (Psa 136:8)​

I don't know, maybe your right, there's some figurative language. Day still means day and Genesis is an historical narrative. Arguments to the contrary are usually predicated on the whole thing being figurative without qualification. Which is an argument from unbelief, that much is obvious.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[jacksonduluth]

Where figurative language is intended, the Bible makes it clear. If Genesis 1 is not historical narrative, one might conclude God was intentionally confusing us.

 

[gluadys]

Where figurative language is intended, the Bible makes it clear. If Genesis 1 is not historical narrative, one might conclude God was intentionally confusing us.

What are your criteria for distinguishing a historical narrative from a non-historical narrative?

How can you tell from the text alone whether a narrative is historical or not?

 

[BobRyan]

There would seem to be some differences about Creation as doctrine and the apologetic effort known as Creation Science. I'm not going to lay out the doctrine as it is expressed in the Nicene Creed, the Genesis account and the New Testament witness. We will get to that if it becomes an issue. I'm simply asking what you think about Creation as doctrine. What is essential and what we are left to our own devices to decide for ourselves.

Your thoughts...

Grace and peace,
Mark

1. God does not lie.

2. God is the creator of all life on earth - starting with no life - and ending with all life phyla etc. God alone can create life - not scientists. (Though Pharaoh's magicians did use demons to create an illusion for the king when Moses showed up.) In Matt 4 the devil argues that Christ could prove his divinity by "creating life" - turning stone into bread. God alone can do that.

3. Since God is not a liar - and God says He is the creator of the Sun and Moon - that is also true. TWO Great lights made on day 4.
4. Details matter - Sun was created on day 4 the day after plants - day 3.
5. God is creator of all stars -- but only two great lights created on day 4. Not all the universe.

6. God did it all in 6 days and rested the 7th day -- giving that to us to be observed in that exact same form.

7. Since God created all life on earth in an instant (in 6 days) - there was no time to have predation, disease, starvation, extinction,death, evil -- there was no sin. So then we begin with a perfect paradise and God is shown in chapter 1 to demonstrate that "God is Love".

8. Since God's hand was directly personally involved, and He was "able" to do it in the short time that He "claims" - He is God, Creator, Lord and has the right to our worship and loyalty. He is king of the universe that He personally created -- by hand. He can rule, He can make Laws and be just and loving in so doing since He has the right to do it -- not just the might.

9. The Bible is trustworthy - historic accounts are reliable in the Bible as skeptics find out "over time". Which means that the Gospel is true - even the miracle parts like Christ rising from the dead -- (yet another thing atheist scientists can't copycat).

10. This means that the account of the fall of mankind is also reliable, accurate, factual, true. And it means that God's plan of salvation is not some sort of 'nonsense" about a "hominid sitting in a cave eating monkey brains then having a -- bad thought -- so then the God of the universe must come and die to save the planet".

11.God then put 'the details' of this 'into legal code" - as we see in the 4th commandment - Ex 20:11. Legal code is never "fiction" in the Bible. Never fairytale, never easter-bunny-based.

12. Genesis includes "details" about the life span of people living before the flood - everyone did not live the same number of years both before and after the flood - each person lived their own life - but the life spans were wayyy too long for the atheist scientists of today and the Gen 1:2-3 historic account records a timeline that is wayyy too short for atheists of today. Where the Bible has a short time - the atheist inserts long ages. Where the bible had long ages of life - the atheist wants a few short decades maybe 7 or 8. Then they have to 'come up' with some excuse by wrenching / bending the text to serve whatever external-to-the-text agenda they may have.

The soon second coming of Christ - will not fit their agenda or timeline either.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What are your criteria for distinguishing a historical narrative from a non-historical narrative?

How can you tell from the text alone whether a narrative is historical or not?

Historical narratives include details - sequence, timelines, facts and references to real things.

In Gen 1:2-2:3 you have a timeboxed sequence - a historical narrative with a timeline. Just as in the case of the death and resurrection of Christ.

To reject Christ's role as Creator as HE stated in Gen 1-2:3 is the first step to rejecting the Gospel of John -- John 1:1-5. And the teaching of Paul Col 1:12-18 and the warning of the future judgment Rev 14:6-7. All of them appeal to the Gen 1:2-2:3 fact of God's work as Creator.

So also His legal code - Ex 20:11.

Even atheists will admit that Moses (or whoever they imagine wrote Genesis) was living at a time when he could not possibly be "promoting Darwinian evolutionism" -- the text is not at all trying to teach or accommodate evolutionism and not one science course on the subject expresses it in the terms of Genesis 1:2-2:3 because that is the opposite of the story for blind faith evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Not poems, understand, prose is a suitable narrative form, just a few rules about the structure. Genesis 1 bears no marks of figurative language and yet it can be dismissed as allegory? Because it's written in a poetic prose does not mean it's figurative, the rest of the histories in Genesis are written in the same form. There is a meter and form, the parallelism of Gen. 1:27 for instance.

The literary form deserves serious consideration.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Poems are important. Genesis 1-8 is not a poem.

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


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


Thirdly, Genesis 1 is followed by other stories which read like successive chapters in a book. The narrative is continuous, with transitions rather than breaks; and it goes right on through the accounts of the patriarchs, the careers of Moses and Joshua, followed by Judges and Kings.



Genesis through Kings is a single, continuous, gigantic chronicle; and all of it is the same kind of writing. It is a unified history of God and his world. As the first part, and an integral part, of that history, Genesis 1 itself is also history.


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

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

All attempt to wrench Genesis 1:2-2:3 are based strictly on an external-to-the-text need to accommodate some facet of evolution. That is literary isogesis - it is not exegesis of the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[gluadys]

Historical narratives include details - sequence, timelines, facts and references to real things.

So do many fictional narratives. Especially historical fiction which depicts real figures of history in real places at real times. The contents of the world listed in Genesis 1 are real: light, dark, land, sea, sun, moon, plants, animals (of land, sea and air), human beings.

But these real things are also referenced in all creation narratives: those of Babylon, Egypt, Germany, Japan, Cree, Mohawk, Zulu, etc.

Does that make every creation narrative historical?

In Gen 1:2-2:3 you have a timeboxed sequence - a historical narrative with a timeline. Just as in the case of the death and resurrection of Christ.

All narratives have a time-line. That is one of the characteristics of narrative. They have a beginning, middle and end. Tennyson's narrative poem, The Lady of Shallot, is a good example. Does that make his narrative historical?

To reject Christ's role as Creator as HE stated in Gen 1-2:3 is the first step to rejecting the Gospel of John -- John 1:1-5. And the teaching of Paul Col 1:12-18 and the warning of the future judgment Rev 14:6-7. All of them appeal to the Gen 1:2-2:3 fact of God's work as Creator.

Red herring. No one is rejecting Christ's role as creator.

Even atheists will admit that Moses (or whoever they imagine wrote Genesis) was living at a time when he could not possibly be "promoting Darwinian evolutionism" -- the text is not at all trying to teach or accommodate evolutionism and not one science course on the subject expresses it in the terms of Genesis 1:2-2:3 because that is the opposite of the story for blind faith evolutionism.

Another red herring. No one is suggesting the biblical writers knew of evolution any more than they knew of atomic fission.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by mark kennedy

Not poems, understand, prose is a suitable narrative form, just a few rules about the structure. Genesis 1 bears no marks of figurative language and yet it can be dismissed as allegory? Because it's written in a poetic prose does not mean it's figurative, the rest of the histories in Genesis are written in the same form. There is a meter and form, the parallelism of Gen. 1:27 for instance.

The literary form deserves serious consideration.

Grace and peace,
Mark
​

Poems are important. Genesis 1-8 is not a poem.

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


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


Thirdly, Genesis 1 is followed by other stories which read like successive chapters in a book. The narrative is continuous, with transitions rather than breaks; and it goes right on through the accounts of the patriarchs, the careers of Moses and Joshua, followed by Judges and Kings.



Genesis through Kings is a single, continuous, gigantic chronicle; and all of it is the same kind of writing. It is a unified history of God and his world. As the first part, and an integral part, of that history, Genesis 1 itself is also history.


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

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

All attempt to wrench Genesis 1:2-2:3 are based strictly on an external-to-the-text need to accommodate some facet of evolution. That is literary isogesis - it is not exegesis of the text.

Note the response was to Mark's idea that maybe Genesis 1 is poetry - I point out that it is not poetry but it is presented as a historical narrative.

Atheists would argue on the other hand that while it is historical narrative - it is still purely fiction because of course for an atheist the Bible is fiction even if it is talking about the birth of Christ.

So do many fictional narratives. Especially historical fiction which depicts real figures of history in real places at real times.

The option of declaring the Bible to be fiction is of course a more reasonable alternative than trying to imagine that Genesis 1 is some sort of unheard of form of poetry.

But for the sake of this thread I think we are going with the Christian options -- And in this case that historic narrative has "details" that are appealed to in legal code as in Ex 20:11 and moral behavior as in several NT doctrines regarding marriage.

Legal code based on fiction is unheard of in the Bible.

One "needs" an external-to-the-text agenda to even propose it.

The contents of the world listed in Genesis 1 are real: light, dark, land, sea, sun, moon, plants, animals (of land, sea and air), human beings.

But these real things are also referenced in all creation narratives: those of Babylon, Egypt, Germany, Japan, Cree, Mohawk, Zulu, etc.

No doubt. But it is not clear that those cultures expected their own creation accounts to be accepted as lies or fiction.

The atheist response is that all of the historic accounts above are fiction.

No doubt.

But for Christians it is not so easy to dismiss the bible simply because some external-to-the-text agenda like belief in evolutionism "needs it".

Does that make every creation narrative historical?

No it makes the "intent of the author" in those case - to present reality rather than "please don't believe a word I am saying". The point in exegeting the text without the external agenda is to asertain the intent of the author and the way the text would be accepted by the intended reader.

Clearly Moses was writing non-fiction historic narrative and the newly freed slaves of egypt were not at all like to be "imagining to themselves" darwinian evolutionism as they read the text of Genesis 1.

Another red herring. No one is suggesting the biblical writers knew of evolution any more than they knew of atomic fission.

That is not a red herring it is the salient point that refutes the effort to insert evolutionism into the text of Genesis 1.

Everyone admits (even atheists) that Moses is not a darwinist. He is not at all concerned with making the case for Darwinian evolutionism. His point about a 7 day creation week is not be discounted at all if one is not suspecting an evolutionist alternative to the text. Nothing in the text argues against the text's timeline.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[mark kennedy]

Poems are important. Genesis 1-8 is not a poem.

Genesis one isn't poetry, that much is true, it's poetic prose. Literary narratives were often written in that style. It's still an historical narrative with no indication of being figurative or allegorical.

The parallelism used to describe the creation of man is poetic, not because it's figurative but to drive home the central emphasis of the passage. God created life.

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

Which is true, I've never said anything different.

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

If you don't get the poetic prose of Genesis you will never get the prophets. If you don't get that I interpret Genesis 1 literally you have gotten my posts hopelessly twisted. The poetic prose of the Genesis narrative is a literary feature, not an indication it's describing anything remotely mythical, allegorical or parabolic.

Now if you would like to do a real exposition let me know but don't characterize me as arguing for a figurative interpretation. I find this gross mischaracterization offensive to put it mildly.

Note the response was to Mark's idea that maybe Genesis 1 is poetry - I point out that it is not poetry but it is presented as a historical narrative.

Stop it Bob, I'm really getting tired of this.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[BobRyan]

In addition to the much-agreed-upon fact that Genesis 1 is not a Poem - and does not use verse forms but is written in the standard literary dialect of narrative prose. ( It is completely devoid of poetic diction, imagery, figures of speech.)


Here are a few irrefutable points regarding Genesis 1 and evolutionism. (not a science discussion)

1. Both the sequence AND the 7 day timeline in Genesis one are not the way that evolutionists of any stripe present evolutionism in science classes. No science text book uses it as the way to describe evolutionism’s story on origins.

2. The 7 day timeline in Genesis 1:2-2:3 is present in legal code in Ex 20:8-11 “six days you shall labor…for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them”.

3. Moses was not trying to teach Darwinian evolutionism to the newly freed slaves from Egypt at mount Sinai. The idea had not been invented and the newly freed slave from Egypt would not have inserted Darwinian evolutionism into the historic narrative – given to them in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3.

4. Seven days is too short a period for all Genus on the planet to come about by any mechanism other than divine fiat creation. So then no development via competition, predation, disease, extinction in so short a timeline.

5. Having the sun and moon created on day 4 while plants are created on day 3 is a sequence that is never presented in any naturalistic explanation of life on earth or our entire solar system.

6. The more popular Christian efforts to eisegete evolutionism into Genesis 1 was not popular at all in Christianity prior to the 1844 document by Darwin promoting his brand of evolutionism. This is not a coincidence and it provides evidence of an “external-to-the-text” agenda to “insert” elements consistent with that external agenda – even if the text itself is not written to support it as determined by sound exegetical methods of interpretation taking into account the author’s knowledge, intent, and the understanding of his intended readers given the way he chooses to present the subject.

7. Christians that believe that the historic narrative form in Genesis 1:2-2:3 is to be accepted as an accurate historic account of the origin of all life on planet earth – also accept the historic narratives of the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ as accurate – are the same groups that declare that Song of Solomon, Revelation and Daniel are using symbols and figures of speech and make the same claims about other texts such as the book of Psalms.

8. The Gospel idea that “God is love” is preserved in a 7 day timeline that describes perfect, sinless, peaceful "paradise" and does not allow for life to evolve via starvation, predation, competition, extinction based natural pressures for “selection”. Genesis 1 states that the animals ate only vegetation which supports a violence-free starting condition consistent with “God IS Love” scenarios.

9. The loss of paradise at the entrance of sin into the world – in the context of the 8 points above – is a huge loss and creates the impression that returning to the starting point would be “ideal”. It is consistent with a Gospel story about “restoration” and returning to Paradise. And this fits perfectly with the idea that God the Son was even willing to die in our place to restore all that was lost to mankind.

10. Evolutionists today do not propose that returning to the cave-dwelling hominid days of avoiding predators, or going back to the time of dinosaurs is “ideal living” for humans. The idea that God would need to die for humanity because some one of 1000’s of hominids living long ages ago ‘had some bad thought’ while sitting in his cave bashing in his daily catch of monkey-brains – makes a mockery of the Gospel. And is generally to be “never thought about “ when promoting blind faith evolutionism as a feature of Genesis 1.

11. Efforts to marry Genesis 1:2-2:3 to the Bible argue that the “Details” of this historic narrative are the “least to be trusted” while broader themes are to be accepted. While at the same time details in other historic narratives such as those providing the account of the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ – should be trusted no matter that atheists would not accept them as physical reality or historic fact.

12. The Legal code of Ex 20:8-11 and the doctrinal statements of the NT that appeal to “six days you shall labor…for in six days the Lord made” and “it was Adam who was created first” and “by one man sin came into the world” (i.e. the “least to be trusted details” of the Genesis account) are presented and appealed to in the NT as the basis for doctrine and in scripture as the basis for Legal code -- as noted in those examples.

13. There are many atheist evolutionists today – such as Dawkins, Meyers and those in the past such as Provine and Darwin that all admit – that starting out as Christians and then coming to the point of faith in evolutionism “no matter what” – lead them to discard Christianity. Many Bible believing Christians today admit to the same blatant contradiction between the Bible account of origins and evolutionism’s story for origins.

14. Atheism could not survive with the Genesis 1:2-2:3 historic account as its story on origins – but it can thrive on evolutionism’s story for origins – just fine. It “needs it”.

15. Atheists and Bible believing Christians are on record noting that if the beginning of the Bible is not to be trusted – then so also is the rest of the text. So for example John’s Gospel account starting with the creation fact in John is in doubt and the future judgment in Rev 14:6-7 based on the creation account is in doubt, as would be every other account/detail/fact that you might wish to object to.

 

[mark kennedy]

In addition to the much-agreed-upon fact that Genesis 1 is not a Poem - and does not use verse forms but is written in the standard literary dialect of narrative prose. ( It is completely devoid of poetic diction, imagery, figures of speech.)

It's poetic prose, historical narratives were written in that literary style. I don't know where you think you get your information but you are hung up on the term 'poem' and it's bouncing you around like tennis shoes in a tumble dryer.

Here are a few irrefutable points regarding Genesis 1 and evolutionism. (not a science discussion)

1. Both the sequence AND the 7 day timeline in Genesis one are not the way that evolutionists of any stripe present evolutionism in science classes. No science text book uses it as the way to describe evolutionism’s story on origins.

Genesis 1 is 6 days, the seventh day is the Sabbath in the opening verses of Genesis 2. There is no such thing as 'evolutionism', there is evolution, defined in the life sciences as the change of alleles in populations over time and Darwinism which is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic assumptions. The latter is the epic myth masquerading as natural history.

2. The 7 day timeline in Genesis 1:2-2:3 is present in legal code in Ex 20:8-11 “six days you shall labor…for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them”.

Creation lasted six days Bob, on the seventh day God rested from all his work.

3. Moses was not trying to teach Darwinian evolutionism to the newly freed slaves from Egypt at mount Sinai. The idea had not been invented and the newly freed slave from Egypt would not have inserted Darwinian evolutionism into the historic narrative – given to them in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3.

The Genesis account starts the Pentateuch which was written from the covenant at Sinai until the conquest of Joshua some 40 years later.

4. Seven days is too short a period for all Genus on the planet to come about by any mechanism other than divine fiat creation. So then no development via competition, predation, disease, extinction in so short a timeline.

Obviously

5. Having the sun and moon created on day 4 while plants are created on day 3 is a sequence that is never presented in any naturalistic explanation of life on earth or our entire solar system.

The heavens and the earth, including the sun and moon were created before creation week started. Day 4 uses a different word, never properly translated created.

6. The more popular Christian efforts to eisegete evolutionism into Genesis 1 was not popular at all in Christianity prior to the 1844 document by Darwin promoting his brand of evolutionism. This is not a coincidence and it provides evidence of an “external-to-the-text” agenda to “insert” elements consistent with that external agenda – even if the text itself is not written to support it as determined by sound exegetical methods of interpretation taking into account the author’s knowledge, intent, and the understanding of his intended readers given the way he chooses to present the subject.

If you'll slow down I'll show you how to do a decent exegesis of the text.

7. Christians that believe that the historic narrative form in Genesis 1:2-2:3 is to be accepted as an accurate historic account of the origin of all life on planet earth – also accept the historic narratives of the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ as accurate – are the same groups that declare that Song of Solomon, Revelation and Daniel are using symbols and figures of speech and make the same claims about other texts such as the book of Psalms.

Creation is related to the Incarnation, no two ways about that. Something else you might find of interest, Song of Solomon has a distinct narrative with some fascinating insights into life in Israel during the united kingdom early in Solomon's reign.

8. The Gospel idea that “God is love” is preserved in a 7 day timeline that describes perfect, sinless, peaceful "paradise" and does not allow for life to evolve via starvation, predation, competition, extinction based natural pressures for “selection”. Genesis 1 states that the animals ate only vegetation which supports a violence-free starting condition consistent with “God IS Love” scenarios.

True enough but...where are you going with this I wonder.

9. The loss of paradise at the entrance of sin into the world – in the context of the 8 points above – is a huge loss and creates the impression that returning to the starting point would be “ideal”. It is consistent with a Gospel story about “restoration” and returning to Paradise. And this fits perfectly with the idea that God the Son was even willing to die in our place to restore all that was lost to mankind.

Ok, there is original sin, another essential doctrine.

10. Evolutionists today do not propose that returning to the cave-dwelling hominid days of avoiding predators, or going back to the time of dinosaurs is “ideal living” for humans. The idea that God would need to die for humanity because some one of 1000’s of hominids living long ages ago ‘had some bad thought’ while sitting in his cave bashing in his daily catch of monkey-brains – makes a mockery of the Gospel. And is generally to be “never thought about “ when promoting blind faith evolutionism as a feature of Genesis 1.

The stone age ape man myth known as Homo habilis. Probably have to get into paleontology for that to have any relevance.

11. Efforts to marry Genesis 1:2-2:3 to the Bible argue that the “Details” of this historic narrative are the “least to be trusted” while broader themes are to be accepted. While at the same time details in other historic narratives such as those providing the account of the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ – should be trusted no matter that atheists would not accept them as physical reality or historic fact.

It's called a hermeneutic principle, you are really going to have to work on your vocabulary.

12. The Legal code of Ex 20:8-11 and the doctrinal statements of the NT that appeal to “six days you shall labor…for in six days the Lord made” and “it was Adam who was created first” and “by one man sin came into the world” (i.e. the “least to be trusted details” of the Genesis account) are presented and appealed to in the NT as the basis for doctrine and in scripture as the basis for Legal code -- as noted in those examples.

Actually that's called the Holiness Code, it differentiates the historical and civil law from the laws regarding sanctification.

13. There are many atheist evolutionists today – such as Dawkins, Meyers and those in the past such as Provine and Darwin that all admit – that starting out as Christians and then coming to the point of faith in evolutionism “no matter what” – lead them to discard Christianity. Many Bible believing Christians today admit to the same blatant contradiction between the Bible account of origins and evolutionism’s story for origins.

Your going to like Darwinians Bob, you just have to read some of their material.

14. Atheism could not survive with the Genesis 1:2-2:3 historic account as its story on origins – but it can thrive on evolutionism’s story for origins – just fine. It “needs it”.

Again with the odd terminology...

15. Atheists and Bible believing Christians are on record noting that if the beginning of the Bible is not to be trusted – then so also is the rest of the text. So for example John’s Gospel account starting with the creation fact in John is in doubt and the future judgment in Rev 14:6-7 based on the creation account is in doubt, as would be every other account/detail/fact that you might wish to object to.

I sure hope that has run it's course. If you settle down a little I'll show you how to do a sound exegesis of the text. When you get that under your belt we might try exploring some of the Darwinian literature.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[gluadys]

The option of declaring the Bible to be fiction is of course a more reasonable alternative than trying to imagine that Genesis 1 is some sort of unheard of form of poetry.

But for the sake of this thread I think we are going with the Christian options -- And in this case that historic narrative has "details" that are appealed to in legal code as in Ex 20:11 and moral behavior as in several NT doctrines regarding marriage.

The bible contains many genres of literature and there are many Christian options about them. So let's stick to the point: you claim the genre o Gen. 1 is not simply "narrative" but "historical narrative". To substantiate that claim it is necessary to be able to distinguish between narratives which are historical and narratives which are not.

No doubt. But it is not clear that those cultures expected their own creation accounts to be accepted as lies or fiction.

Precisely. They all treated their own creation accounts just as the Israelites did their own. They even believed their gods were real. Does that mean their creation accounts are also historical narrative?

The atheist response is that all of the historic accounts above are fiction.

Atheists are banned from this forum & in any case I am not referencing atheist responses. I am asking how one distinguishes narratives that are historical from narratives that are not. Whether they are in the bible or the newspaper.

But for Christians it is not so easy to dismiss the bible simply because some external-to-the-text agenda like belief in evolutionism "needs it".

Red herring. Genesis 1 was perceived by some Jewish and Christian scholars to be non-historical long before the concept of evolution entered the scene.

No it makes the "intent of the author" in those case - to present reality rather than "please don't believe a word I am saying". The point in exegeting the text without the external agenda is to asertain the intent of the author and the way the text would be accepted by the intended reader.

Clearly Moses was writing non-fiction historic narrative and the newly freed slaves of egypt were not at all like to be "imagining to themselves" darwinian evolutionism as they read the text of Genesis 1.

I agree that exegesis ideally reveals the intent of the author. And the intent of the authors of non-biblical creation narratives appears to be the same as the intent of the biblical authors. So, if their creation accounts are not historical narratives, what makes the biblical account a historical narrative?

That is not a red herring it is the salient point that refutes the effort to insert evolutionism into the text of Genesis 1.

No one who understands biblical exegesis tries to insert evolution or any modern science into the text of the bible.

Everyone admits (even atheists) that Moses is not a darwinist. He is not at all concerned with making the case for Darwinian evolutionism. His point about a 7 day creation week is not be discounted at all if one is not suspecting an evolutionist alternative to the text. Nothing in the text argues against the text's timeline.

Of course it doesn't. It is an excellent, well-crafted, well-presented narrative in more ways that the days framework. Naturally it is internally consistent. But what tells us it is historical?

In addition to the much-agreed-upon fact that Genesis 1 is not a Poem - and does not use verse forms but is written in the standard literary dialect of narrative prose. ( It is completely devoid of poetic diction, imagery, figures of speech.)

Oh? Narrative prose it is. It is also highly poetic prose. In Hebrew, it is rhythmic, suitable for singing. The narrative structure has the architecture of a temple with foundation (introduction), pillars (two sets of three days), image of God (humanity) and roof (Sabbath). It contains repetitive motifs one would not ordinarily find in conversation or unadorned narrative, such as a judicial report.

Here are a few irrefutable points regarding Genesis 1 and evolutionism. (not a science discussion)

1. Both the sequence AND the 7 day timeline in Genesis one are not the way that evolutionists of any stripe present evolutionism in science classes. No science text book uses it as the way to describe evolutionism’s story on origins.

Agreed. A religious text is not science and and the bible is not a scientific text. Conflict only comes into being when people make claims that the bible teaches science when it does not.

2. The 7 day timeline in Genesis 1:2-2:3 is present in legal code in Ex 20:8-11 “six days you shall labor…for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them”.

Of course, since the Sabbath was an institution in Israel before either the creation account or the law was written. And the same author wrote both. One function of the creation account was to explain why the Sabbath is observed. Interestlngly, the Deuteronomic version also commands Sabbath observance, but with a reference to the Exodus rather than to creation.

3. Moses was not trying to teach Darwinian evolutionism to the newly freed slaves from Egypt at mount Sinai. The idea had not been invented and the newly freed slave from Egypt would not have inserted Darwinian evolutionism into the historic narrative – given to them in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3.

Of course he was not. He would have no concept of evolution.

4. Seven days is too short a period for all Genus on the planet to come about by any mechanism other than divine fiat creation. So then no development via competition, predation, disease, extinction in so short a timeline.

And that is why the Genesis text cannot be considered science.

5. Having the sun and moon created on day 4 while plants are created on day 3 is a sequence that is never presented in any naturalistic explanation of life on earth or our entire solar system.

Another excellent reason for not treating Genesis 1 as a scientific text.

6. The more popular Christian efforts to eisegete evolutionism into Genesis 1 was not popular at all in Christianity prior to the 1844 document by Darwin promoting his brand of evolutionism. This is not a coincidence.

1844? Darwin published in 1859. A brief paper was presented at the Royal Society in 1858. However another version of evolution was promoted by Lamarck early in the century, when Darwin was still an infant.

The only event I associate with 1844 was the Great Disappointment that the predicted return of Christ did not occur. This played a significant role in the birth of Seventh-Day Adventism, which in turn, provided the seed of modern young-earth creationism.

Most Christians, even anti-evolutionists, in the 19th & early 20th centuries accepted a great age for the earth. e.g Charles Hodge the great principal of Princeton Theological Seminary who wrote a treatise denouncing Darwinism as atheism held to a day-age correlation of geological strata to the days of Genesis. So did William Jennings Bryan. Also great anti-Darwin scientists such as Baron Georges Cuvier in Paris and Louis Agassiz at Harvard. So the view that Genesis days are "God's days" not human days was well-established as an orthodox Christian view without any reference to evolution.

7. Christians that believe that the historic narrative form in Genesis 1:2-2:3 is to be accepted as an accurate historic account of the origin of all life on planet earth

Some Christians do. Many don't. And it is not for you to judge that Christians who disagree with you are not Christians.

8. The Gospel idea that “God is love” is preserved in a 7 day timeline that describes perfect, sinless, peaceful "paradise" and does not allow for life to evolve via starvation, predation, competition, extinction based natural pressures for “selection”. Genesis 1 states that the animals ate only vegetation which supports a violence-free starting condition consistent with “God IS Love” scenarios.

Agreed. But the presentation of this ideal via a narrative does not require that the narrative be history.

9. The loss of paradise at the entrance of sin into the world – in the context of the 8 points above – is a huge loss and creates the impression that returning to the starting point would be “ideal”. It is consistent with a Gospel story about “restoration” and returning to Paradise. And this fits perfectly with the idea that God the Son was even willing to die in our place to restore all that was lost to mankind.

Again, agreed. as above.

10. Evolutionists today do not propose that returning to the cave-dwelling hominid days of avoiding predators, or going back to the time of dinosaurs is “ideal living” for humans. The idea that God would need to die for humanity because some one of 1000’s of hominids living long ages ago ‘had some bad thought’ while sitting in his cave bashing in his daily catch of monkey-brains – makes a mockery of the Gospel. And is generally to be “never thought about “ when promoting blind faith evolutionism as a feature of Genesis 1.

Evolution is a scientific theory which says nothing about untestable concepts such as God. And presenting a straw man caricature of evolution theory is hardly conducive to civil discussion. (Note that science is unable to comment on God, because to do so, scientists would need to be able to control God's actions. Since no human is in a position to control God, God is beyond science and no science, not even evolution, can deny God. Some people, some atheists and some Christians, often forget this. )

11. Efforts to marry Genesis 1:2-2:3 to the Bible argue that the “Details” of this historic narrative are the “least to be trusted” while broader themes are to be accepted. While at the same time details in other historic narratives such as those providing the account of the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ – should be trusted no matter that atheists would not accept them as physical reality or historic fact.

Well, we don't have much detail on any of these; none that would stand up in a court of law, for example.

12. The Legal code of Ex 20:8-11 and the doctrinal statements of the NT that appeal to “six days you shall labor…for in six days the Lord made” and “it was Adam who was created first” and “by one man sin came into the world” (i.e. the “least to be trusted details” of the Genesis account) are presented and appealed to in the NT as the basis for doctrine and in scripture as the basis for Legal code -- as noted in those examples.

Yes, it is interesting that all doctrinal statements about Adam come from the NT after near silence about him in the OT. Perhaps we should look more at first-century Jewish theology on Adam to clarify what Paul intended to say.

13. There are many atheist evolutionists today – such as Dawkins, Meyers and those in the past such as Provine and Darwin that all admit – that starting out as Christians and then coming to the point of faith in evolutionism “no matter what” – lead them to discard Christianity. Many Bible believing Christians today admit to the same blatant contradiction between the Bible account of origins and evolutionism’s story for origins.

And one thing they all have in common is a background which treated the bible as a science text. As scientists, they had little in the way of theological training. It is as if they thought what they learned in Sunday School was supposed to be understood as children understand them. Too bad they never learned to put away childish notions. Many young people today move into atheism by the same route.

14. Atheism could not survive with the Genesis 1:2-2:3 historic account as its story on origins – but it can thrive on evolutionism’s story for origins – just fine. It “needs it”.

So how do you explain millennia of atheism long before modern science? Even the Psalmist knew of fools who said "there is no god". Atheism has never needed evolution. Evolution does not need atheism. But people who pit bible against science make a fertile soil for breeding atheism.

15. Atheists and Bible believing Christians are on record noting that if the beginning of the Bible is not to be trusted – then so also is the rest of the text. So for example John’s Gospel account starting with the creation fact in John is in doubt and the future judgment in Rev 14:6-7 based on the creation account is in doubt, as would be every other account/detail/fact that you might wish to object to.

New-fangled theology. Orthodox Christianity recognized for millennia that God has given us two revelations: creation and scripture. Scripture itself testifies that the creation is revelation. Brought into being by the Word, sustained by the Spirit, it elicits reverence and awe in all--until they allow their own lusts to deny its testimony. So, as Paul says, even those who have never heard of Moses are without excuse when they turn their backs on the one who made this marvellous universe. Scripture is the special revelation of God to Israel and the church. Scripture cannot contradict the revelation of creation and creation cannot contradict the revelation of scripture, for both come from the God of all truth.

Any view of scripture that sets it at odds with creation has to be a misinterpretation. For God no more deceives in creation than he does in scripture. Young-earth creationist views demand whole-sale deception in what God created.

 

[BobRyan]

In addition to the much-agreed-upon fact that Genesis 1 is not a Poem - and does not use verse forms but is written in the standard literary dialect of narrative prose. ( It is completely devoid of poetic diction, imagery, figures of speech.)


Here are a few irrefutable points regarding Genesis 1 and evolutionism. (not a science discussion)

1. Both the sequence AND the 7 day timeline in Genesis one are not the way that evolutionists of any stripe present evolutionism in science classes. No science text book uses it as the way to describe evolutionism’s story on origins.

2. The 7 day timeline in Genesis 1:2-2:3 is present in legal code in Ex 20:8-11 “six days you shall labor…for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them”.

3. Moses was not trying to teach Darwinian evolutionism to the newly freed slaves from Egypt at mount Sinai. The idea had not been invented and the newly freed slave from Egypt would not have inserted Darwinian evolutionism into the historic narrative – given to them in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3.

4. Seven days is too short a period for all Genus on the planet to come about by any mechanism other than divine fiat creation. So then no development via competition, predation, disease, extinction in so short a timeline.

5. Having the sun and moon created on day 4 while plants are created on day 3 is a sequence that is never presented in any naturalistic explanation of life on earth or our entire solar system.

6. The more popular Christian efforts to eisegete evolutionism into Genesis 1 was not popular at all in Christianity prior to the 1844 document by Darwin promoting his brand of evolutionism. This is not a coincidence and it provides evidence of an “external-to-the-text” agenda to “insert” elements consistent with that external agenda – even if the text itself is not written to support it as determined by sound exegetical methods of interpretation taking into account the author’s knowledge, intent, and the understanding of his intended readers given the way he chooses to present the subject.

7. Christians that believe that the historic narrative form in Genesis 1:2-2:3 is to be accepted as an accurate historic account of the origin of all life on planet earth – also accept the historic narratives of the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ as accurate – are the same groups that declare that Song of Solomon, Revelation and Daniel are using symbols and figures of speech and make the same claims about other texts such as the book of Psalms.

8. The Gospel idea that “God is love” is preserved in a 7 day timeline that describes perfect, sinless, peaceful "paradise" and does not allow for life to evolve via starvation, predation, competition, extinction based natural pressures for “selection”. Genesis 1 states that the animals ate only vegetation which supports a violence-free starting condition consistent with “God IS Love” scenarios.

9. The loss of paradise at the entrance of sin into the world – in the context of the 8 points above – is a huge loss and creates the impression that returning to the starting point would be “ideal”. It is consistent with a Gospel story about “restoration” and returning to Paradise. And this fits perfectly with the idea that God the Son was even willing to die in our place to restore all that was lost to mankind.

10. Evolutionists today do not propose that returning to the cave-dwelling hominid days of avoiding predators, or going back to the time of dinosaurs is “ideal living” for humans. The idea that God would need to die for humanity because some one of 1000’s of hominids living long ages ago ‘had some bad thought’ while sitting in his cave bashing in his daily catch of monkey-brains – makes a mockery of the Gospel. And is generally to be “never thought about “ when promoting blind faith evolutionism as a feature of Genesis 1.

11. Efforts to marry Genesis 1:2-2:3 to the Bible argue that the “Details” of this historic narrative are the “least to be trusted” while broader themes are to be accepted. While at the same time details in other historic narratives such as those providing the account of the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ – should be trusted no matter that atheists would not accept them as physical reality or historic fact.

12. The Legal code of Ex 20:8-11 and the doctrinal statements of the NT that appeal to “six days you shall labor…for in six days the Lord made” and “it was Adam who was created first” and “by one man sin came into the world” (i.e. the “least to be trusted details” of the Genesis account) are presented and appealed to in the NT as the basis for doctrine and in scripture as the basis for Legal code -- as noted in those examples.

13. There are many atheist evolutionists today – such as Dawkins, Meyers and those in the past such as Provine and Darwin that all admit – that starting out as Christians and then coming to the point of faith in evolutionism “no matter what” – lead them to discard Christianity. Many Bible believing Christians today admit to the same blatant contradiction between the Bible account of origins and evolutionism’s story for origins.

14. Atheism could not survive with the Genesis 1:2-2:3 historic account as its story on origins – but it can thrive on evolutionism’s story for origins – just fine. It “needs it”.

15. Atheists and Bible believing Christians are on record noting that if the beginning of the Bible is not to be trusted – then so also is the rest of the text. So for example John’s Gospel account starting with the creation fact in John is in doubt and the future judgment in Rev 14:6-7 based on the creation account is in doubt, as would be every other account/detail/fact that you might wish to object to.

The bible contains many genres of literature and there are many Christian options about them. So let's stick to the point: you claim the genre o Gen. 1 is not simply "narrative" but "historical narrative". To substantiate that claim it is necessary to be able to distinguish between narratives which are historical and narratives which are not.

In Genesis 1:2-2:3 we have historical narrative. Timeline, sequence, a contiguous story line, references to real objects and things -

Just stating the obvious.

Even atheists will see this point - they may choose to regard the historical narrative - the historic account of creation as myth or fiction not suitable for the atheist belief system -- but that is beside the point.

Precisely. They all treated their own creation accounts just as the Israelites did their own. They even believed their gods were real. Does that mean their creation accounts are also historical narrative?

Indeed they are all historical narrative but they are not all truth. This forum is not about choosing whether or not Christianity is the right religion.

Again - stating the obvious.

Atheists are banned from this forum & in any case I am not referencing atheist responses. I am asking how one distinguishes narratives that are historical from narratives that are not. Whether they are in the bible or the newspaper.

Historical narrative is a form of writing the fact that the Babylonians use it to describe origins is a "given" just as in the case of all other cultures. Whether or not you trust the authors/writers/source for those narratives is not the subject of this area of the board since it is a given here that Christianity is true.

Red herring. Genesis 1 was perceived by some Jewish and Christian scholars to be non-historical long before the concept of evolution entered the scene.

Red herring. The point is not that heresy never existed before Darwin. The point is that the historical narrative is a form of writing that most people (even atheists) will admit to even if it is a form of writing used by Moses or by Babylonians.

And this form of writing points out the fact that the author and the intended readers (in this case newly freed slaves from Egypt) were accepting the narrative at face value and promoting it as fact-- and not fiction.

Again even Atheists will admit to this simple point even though they deny that the text in question is historically accurate or truthful.

Again - stating the obvious.

I agree that exegesis ideally reveals the intent of the author. And the intent of the authors of non-biblical creation narratives appears to be the same as the intent of the biblical authors.

Which is the point that destroys the theistic evolutionist attempt to eisegete evolutionism into Genesis 1 or anything compatible with it.

So, if their creation accounts are not historical narratives, what makes the biblical account a historical narrative?

they are all written in the style of historic narrative - but non-Christian versions are not factually accurate -- which is the premise of CF forums and of most Christians.

No one who understands biblical exegesis tries to insert evolution or any modern science into the text of the bible.

Which leaves us with nothing but Moses' own 7 day timeline as stated in the text and summarized in Legal Code in Ex 20:11.

So that means that Moses was conveying a timeline detail to the newly freed slaves of Egypt that does not fit at all with modern evolution.

A key detail not to be missed.

Nothing "in the text" argues argues against the 7 day timeline found "in the text".

as pointed out before - attempts in Christianity to find a evolution-friendly re-make of the text only become popular after the 1844 document by Darwin - betraying a purely external-to-the-text agenda for re-inventing it - an agenda not based on anything dictated by the text itself.

It is an excellent, well-crafted, well-presented narrative in more ways that the days framework. Naturally it is internally consistent. But what tells us it is historical?

Whether one accepts the historical narrative style of writing penned by Moses as historically accurate - as true to actual events (if one had a video) depends on what you think of the source Moses had for obtaining that Narrative.

Of course, since the Sabbath was an institution in Israel before either the creation account or the law was written. And the same author wrote both. One function of the creation account was to explain why the Sabbath is observed.

"six days you shall labor..for in six days the Lord made" Ex 20:8-11 shows the intended meaning given to the newly freed slaves from Egypt. They were not being introduced to "long ages of undefined time" but rather the same concept for unit-of-time applied both their week and that of Gen 1:2-2:3.

And done so in pure Legal Code - the Ten Commandments - not done so in some odd poem, myth, fiction.

So then we see the purpose, intent, and the unit of time fully explained in the text. Whether one chooses to discard it all as would our atheist friends is a separate question.

Interestlngly, the Deuteronomic version also commands Sabbath observance, but with a reference to the Exodus rather than to creation.

A distinction without a difference in the case of Ex 20 and Deut since Ex 20:1-2 starts off ALL the Ten Commandment with reference to the Exodus - not just the 4th commandment

Thus the appeal to the genesis account in the 4th commandment "six days shall you labor...for in six days the Lord made" is not negated or detracted from by the appeal to the recent fact of the exodus in Ex 20:1.

And still the case in Deut 4 and 5.

And that is why the Genesis text cannot be considered science.

We are not talking about what is considered "Science" when speaking of the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ or God's statement on a 7 day creation week.

We are asking about the intent of the authors, the meaning they conveyed to their primary intended readers (i.e exegesis) and then we apply that to what the reader today thinks of the Word of God.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

1844? Darwin published in 1859. A brief paper was presented at the Royal Society in 1858.

His manuscript was completed in 1844. The point is that no attempt to twist the reading of Genesis 1 was popular in Christianity until after that date though as some have noted many heresies did exist before that date -- isolated instances not at all accepted by Christianity.

Most Christians, even anti-evolutionists, in the 19th & early 20th centuries accepted a great age for the earth. e.g Charles Hodge the great principal of Princeton Theological Seminary who wrote a treatise denouncing Darwinism as atheism held to a day-age correlation of geological strata to the days of Genesis. So did William Jennings Bryan.

All of which are after the completion of Darwin's manuscript in 1844.

Agreed. But the presentation of this ideal via a narrative does not require that the narrative be history.

The point of whether the history presented in the historic account is accurate is separate from the question of whether it is presented to Israel at Sinai with that intention. It is clear from the text that it is expected by taken by the reader as factual and there is no "reason in the text" to ignor the timeline the text provides or to 'insert a timeline of your choice' instead of what is found in the text.

All efforts to insert timelines other than the 7 day timeline given in the text - come from agendas external to the text itself and unknown to both Moses and his readers.

Yes, it is interesting that all doctrinal statements about Adam come from the NT after near silence about him in the OT. Perhaps we should look more at first-century Jewish theology on Adam to clarify what Paul intended to say.

Read the Bible. NT writers refer to the OT text as "scripture" and "it is written" exclusively. "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

We know exactly what they were referencing when speaking about Adam. No need to cast about us for non-Biblical solutions in service to evolutionism's stories.

So how do you explain millennia of atheism long before modern science?

The devil predates Darwin.

Even the Psalmist knew of fools who said "there is no god". Atheism has never needed evolution

Until you talk to an actual atheist like Darwin, Dawkins, Martin Reese, Leonard Suskind etc.

Scripture is the special revelation of God to Israel and the church. Scripture cannot contradict the revelation of creation and creation cannot contradict the revelation of scripture, for both come from the God of all truth.

Which is why the "intent" of Moses and the way he writes his historic narrative for his primary audience of freed slaves from Egypt -- is so important for the Christian reader.

 

[gluadys]

In Genesis 1:2-2:3 we have historical narrative. Timeline, sequence, a contiguous story line, references to real objects and things -

Just stating the obvious.

All of these things show us the text is a narrative. They do not show us it is a historical narrative, because they all exist in non-historical narratives as well.

As a student and sometimes teacher of literature, I do not recognize "historical narrative" as a legitimate literary genre. I do recognize narrative. I do recognize some narratives are about history--contemporary or past. And I do recognize that some narratives are purely fictitious and some blend history and fiction.

Indeed they are all historical narrative but they are not all truth. This forum is not about choosing whether or not Christianity is the right religion.

In that case, there is really no difference between historical narrative and narrative. If a historical narrative can be about a history that did not happen, then the adjective is superfluous. Every narrative becomes historical.

Historical narrative is a form of writing the fact that the Babylonians use it to describe origins is a "given" just as in the case of all other cultures. Whether or not you trust the authors/writers/source for those narratives is not the subject of this area of the board since it is a given here that Christianity is true.

Now this makes more sense; you recognize that the genre of literature used in the creation accounts of other peoples is the same as that in the bible. However, this makes the claim that the biblical account is "historical narrative" difficult to sustain. Unlike most people who try to tell us the other accounts are not historical but the biblical account is, you grant that as a literary genre, the non-biblical accounts are also "historical" narrative.

To me, this simply means the adjective is superfluous. All such accounts are (historical) narratives and the text in and of itself does not tell us which recount actual history and which do not.


I also like that you set it out as a matter of trust. i.e. of faith. Since we have competing accounts of creation, and no means from any text to tell which accords with actual history, each culture, including the Hebrew culture simply trusts that their own is accurate.

Red herring. The point is not that heresy never existed before Darwin. The point is that the historical narrative is a form of writing that most people (even atheists) will admit to even if it is a form of writing used by Moses or by Babylonians.

As I said, the adjective is superfluous. Narrative prose is a form of writing and is the form used in Genesis. Narrative poetry is also a form of writing and is the form used in the Enuma Elish. Both narratives, from the perspective of their respective nations are "historical". Both narratives, viewed from the other nation's perspective is non-historical.

And this form of writing points out the fact that the author and the intended readers (in this case newly freed slaves from Egypt) were accepting the narrative at face value and promoting it as fact-- and not fiction.

No, it is not the form of writing that led to accepting this narrative, since the same type of narrative is also used in other creation accounts as well, which are rejected by the Israelites. Rather it is the trust you mentioned. This is the narrative in which their own God appears as the creator, as the sole creator. Therefore, they trust this narrative over others.

Good theology, but it has nothing to do with the form of writing.

Which is the point that destroys the theistic evolutionist attempt to eisegete evolutionism into Genesis 1 or anything compatible with it.

Psychologists call this projection. You are claiming theistic evolutionists (though many of us prefer "evolutionary creationist") try to put evolution into Genesis, because that is what you think it takes to be an evolutionary creationist. But most evolutionary creationists actually steer away from trying to read evolution into Genesis or even anywhere into the bible. The bible was simply written too soon to contain any reference to evolution, and evolutionary creationists are well aware of that.

Some people also think that evolutionary creation is wedded to Day-Age or Gap theories which were once popular ways to make science and bible fit together. But that is not the case either. Personally, I believe the writer of Genesis was probably thinking literally of single days. I see no reason not to understand the narrative literally within the framework of the narrative.

It is when we try to take the account out of the framework of the narrative and fit it to a different narrative--the scientific narrative, or the verified narratives of history--that problems arise.

Which leaves us with nothing but Moses' own 7 day timeline as stated in the text and summarized in Legal Code in Ex 20:11.

So that means that Moses was conveying a timeline detail to the newly freed slaves of Egypt that does not fit at all with modern evolution.

Right.

Nothing "in the text" argues argues against the 7 day timeline found "in the text".

Right. What argues against the 7-day timeline is not in the text; it is in the revelation we call the creation or created order. It clearly has a much longer history which includes evolution. And we believe it was made by the God depicted in the scripture as the creator.

Whether one accepts the historical narrative style of writing penned by Moses as historically accurate - as true to actual events (if one had a video) depends on what you think of the source Moses had for obtaining that Narrative.

Since I believe God gave us both the created world, which clearly has an ancient history extending back billions of years, and the sacred text which includes a narrative in which creation was completed in pretty much modern form in one week I would say that God was not imparting history in the inspired scripture. I take it the narrative of Genesis has a different function. No doubt it was taken as history when there was little awareness of the factual history of the earth. Yet, even as long as 2,000 years ago, questions were raised about the nature of the days of Genesis in both Jewish and Christian circles.

The discovery of deep time and outer space presents us with a challenge around the nature of the creation accounts, but unless we choose either to completely reject creation as of God or to reject scripture entirely and embrace atheism, it is a challenge we cannot evade. I don't believe we are called to bury ourselves in a book, not even the most holy of books. Scripture was not given to us to shelter ourselves from the world of God's making, but to guide us through it.

A distinction without a difference in the case of Ex 20 and Deut since Ex 20:1-2 starts off ALL the Ten Commandment with reference to the Exodus - not just the 4th commandment

Thus the appeal to the genesis account in the 4th commandment "six days shall you labor...for in six days the Lord made" is not negated or detracted from by the appeal to the recent fact of the exodus in Ex 20:1.

We are not talking about what is considered "Science" when speaking of the virgin birth, the resurrection of Christ or God's statement on a 7 day creation week.

I am glad you recognize that. Then there is no need for scripture to be seen as in conflict with science.

We are asking about the intent of the authors, the meaning they conveyed to their primary intended readers (i.e exegesis) and then we apply that to what the reader today thinks of the Word of God.

And that is where our challenge comes in. The original author and readers did not live in a culture informed by science. We do. They could consider the creation account any way they wanted to: including history. We cannot, because we know it is very different from the verified history of this planet and this universe.

His manuscript was completed in 1844. The point is that no attempt to twist the reading of Genesis 1 was popular in Christianity until after that date though as some have noted many heresies did exist before that date -- isolated instances not at all accepted by Christianity.



All of which are after the completion of Darwin's manuscript in 1844.

Well, that depends. I gave you names of people who knew of Darwin's theory, rejected Darwin's theory, yet still rejected a 7-day creation as historically factual. This shows that there are really two different issues here.

Now if you want to look at Christians who accepted a historical time-line of the earth before 1844, there are plenty of those as well; for that time-line comes from the geological work that was done from the late 18th century to the early 19th century. You can learn a good deal about the reason Christians went to Day-Age and/or Gap interpretations of Genesis well before 1844 in sources such as "The Collapse of 'Flood Geology' and a Young Earth". A short summary of the book is available on-line: History of the Collapse of Flood Geology and a Young Earth

The official end of scientific diluvianism is generally set at 1835 when the last reputable holdout for a global flood announced that recent evidence that the moraines he attribute to the flood were actually remnants of glaciation. That was Rev. Adam Sedgwick. Even before he recognized there is no way to fit a global flood in earth's history, he was long since convinced of the immense age of the earth. And so were many others along with him and before him.

One of the earliest of course, was James Hutton.

Another Christian who accepted an old age for the earth was William Smith, the British engineer who created the first geological map of Britain. His work dates to the 1830s.

Although Hugh Miller, one of the founders of the Free Church of Scotland, wrote in the 1840s, he is unlikely to have been aware of Darwin's unpublished manuscript. But he also promoted an old age for the earth in the church monthly magazine of which he was editor. His writings on fossils were later collected into a short book called "The Old Red Sandstone".

So, it was geology, not evolution, that first challenged a recent, quick creation. Of course, evolution, especially recent study on genomes, has confirmed the earlier science.

The point of whether the history presented in the historic account is accurate is separate from the question of whether it is presented to Israel at Sinai with that intention. It is clear from the text that it is expected by taken by the reader as factual and there is no "reason in the text" to ignor the timeline the text provides or to 'insert a timeline of your choice' instead of what is found in the text.

All efforts to insert timelines other than the 7 day timeline given in the text - come from agendas external to the text itself and unknown to both Moses and his readers.

Exactly. That is why it is wrong IMO to develop theories such as Day-Age or Gap which try to create a concordant time-line between that of scripture and that of created nature. It is certainly wrong to seek support for evolution in a text written by and for people to whom it was wholly unknown.

However, since there is massive evidence that the earth is billions of years old, then it is clear that whatever those of ancient times believed, we can no longer treat these narratives as factual history whenever it is clear that they are not.

Much of the bible does deal with history, of course, some of it verified by extra-biblical sources. And much more of it at least plausibly history; it is certainly not proven that they are not historical. But in the creation and flood accounts, we have too much evidence in creation to accept them now as accurate history.

Read the Bible. NT writers refer to the OT text as "scripture" and "it is written" exclusively. "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things spoken to them by Paul - were SO" Acts 17:11

NT writers were no more informed by science or verified history than OT writers. The same limitations in those field apply to them.

We know exactly what they were referencing when speaking about Adam. No need to cast about us for non-Biblical solutions in service to evolutionism's stories.

I doubt it. There is a whole field of Jewish studies on Adam that Paul as a trained rabbi would be familiar with that most Christians remain ignorant of. I think he likely had a perspective on Adam that is quite different from that of the average American evangelical Christian.

The devil predates Darwin.

And does not need evolution as an ally.