Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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.
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.
Originally Posted by mark kennedy
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.
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?
Another red herring. No one is suggesting the biblical writers knew of evolution any more than they knew of atomic fission.
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.
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.
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 evolutionisms 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 authors 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 1000s 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 evolutionisms 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 evolutionisms 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 Johns 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 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.
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.
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".
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.
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 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 evolutionisms 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.
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
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 1000s 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 evolutionisms 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 evolutionisms 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 Johns 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.
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 evolutionisms 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 authors 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 1000s 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 evolutionisms 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 evolutionisms 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 Johns 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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
No one who understands biblical exegesis tries to insert evolution or any modern science into the text of the bible.
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?
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.
And that is why the Genesis text cannot be considered science.
1844? Darwin published in 1859. A brief paper was presented at the Royal Society in 1858.
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.
Agreed. But the presentation of this ideal via a narrative does not require that the narrative be history.
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.
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
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.
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.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.
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.
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. 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.
Which is the point that destroys the theistic evolutionist attempt to eisegete evolutionism into Genesis 1 or anything compatible with it.
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.
Nothing "in the text" argues argues against the 7 day timeline found "in the text".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The devil predates Darwin.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?