What is Creation as Essential Doctrine?

[mark kennedy]

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

There is one big difference between pagan mythology and the Hebrew historical narrative starting in Genesis 1:

Tiamat is a chaos monster, a primordial goddess of the ocean, mating with Abzû (the god of fresh water) to produce younger gods. It is suggested that there are two parts to the Tiamat mythos, the first in which Tiamat is 'creatrix', through a "Sacred marriage" between salt and fresh water, peacefully creating the cosmos through successive generations.​

Tiamat

The pagan mythologies always went back to the pagan elementals, earth, air, fire and in this case, water. The most obvious difference is that God created the elements, not vice verse.

Their waters were mingled together,
And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;
When of the gods none had been called into being.​

Enûma Eliš

This is nothing new and it didn't start with Charles Darwin but you could credit his grandfather who was an accomplished mythographer in his own right:

"Organic Life beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom,
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.​

(The Temple of Nature, Erasmus Darwin)

Ask yourself, which sounds more like Babylonian mythology, Erasmus Darwin or the prophet Moses? Here is a definition for a 'myth':

Myth

1. A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. Stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. Any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. An imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. An unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

Notice the other terms used: 'invented', 'imaginary', 'fictitious', 'unproved', 'false'. The elements in #1 describe a myth as, 'without a determinable basis of fact'. This is not the case with the Hebrew Scriptures, in fact, they are the best living history from antiquity. Of course there is no 'natural explanation', in the sense that nature doesn't have a phenomenon that can account for something like God creating in the sense of 'bara'. It's a miracle in the strongest possible sense of the word.

Here is the word used in the Genesis account for the creation of the universe (Gen. 1:1), life (Gen. 1:21) and man (Gen. 1:26). It should be noted that the word used for creation is used three times in connection to the creation of Adam.

CREATE: bara' (בָּרָא baw-raw H1254) "to create, make." This verb is of profound theological significance, since it has only God as its subject. Only God can "create" in the sense implied by bara'. The verb expresses creation out of nothing, an idea seen clearly in passages having to do with creation on a cosmic scale: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Gen. 1:1; cf. Gen. 2:3; Isa. 40:26; 42:5). All other verbs for "creating" allow a much broader range of meaning; they have both divine and human subjects, and are used in contexts where bringing something or someone into existence is not the issue. Bara is frequently found in parallel to these other verbs, such as 'asah, "to make" (Isa. 41:20; 43:7; 45:7, 12; Amos 4:13), yasar, "to form" (Isa. 43:1, 7; 45:7; Amos 4:13), and kun, "to establish."​

(F. F. Bruce, and W. E. Vine. Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words)

Darwinism is a myth, the narrative of creation in Genesis 1 is the only account of creation because only God was there. There is a reason the Nicene Creed starts with a confession of God as Creator and the Incarnation, they are inextricably linked. To worship Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship him as Creator, to take creation figuratively is to take salvation figuratively.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. (Nicene Creed)​

Why not ask the question, if the creation account is taken figuratively should we take the Gospel figuratively as well?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[BobRyan]

My point is that there is no such thing as a popular effort by Christians to munge the 7 day timeline in Genesis 1:2-2:3 to fit evolutionism -- until sometime after Darwin's 1844 manuscript is complete --- and this is no coincidence.

And the 7 day timeline provides a perfect historical narrative - historic account - of the creation of all life on earth and of our Sun and Moon. These are details "in the text" itself - not details to be added by creationists.

At no point has anyone been able to show that "the text itself" is arguing against the 7 day timeline that the text contains.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Anyone wanting/wishing/hoping to show that Moses' text is arguing against a 7 day timeline for creation week -- and equating it to our 7 day week the best place to start with that externally-motivated agenda is probably here --



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

Gen 1

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Gen 2
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens

Ex 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX Days the Lord MADE ...."

Need even more help??

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

 

[BobRyan]

All of these things show us the text is a narrative.

Indeed an account of history --

So for those needing some pointers on where to go to find that the text itself argues against its own 7 day timeline -- start here

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

Gen 1

24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.


Gen 2
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens

Ex 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX Days the Lord MADE ...."

Need even more help??

Ex 20:11
11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

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

Whether one chooses to believe that account is another matter. Certainly we all know that atheists could not accept it and still cling to atheism.

They do not show us it is a historical narrative, because they all exist in non-historical narratives as well.

Narratives claiming to give us an accurate account of history are many.

As Christians we tend to believe the Christian ones and avoid the pagan ones.

It is our way.

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 and whether an atheist chooses to accept the history as stated by Moses in Genesis 1:2-2:3 or not is a matter of choice, free will.

I never doubt that.

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.

All narrative does not claim to be historic fact. Some narratives claim to be pure fiction. Most novels are written as narratives claiming to be fiction.

The idea that if any narrative claims to tell the truth about actual historic events - then all narratives must be historical - is a new idea to me.

Never heard of such a thing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Just the opposite.

All can recognize many texts trying to present themselves as reliable trustworthy accounts of real events - rather than rubbish.

All can recognize that the intent of those authors is always to write something that the reader is expected to believe rather than toss out as rubbish and unreliable.

That means that Moses was expecting his newly freed slaves to believe the historic account rather than distrust it as foolish fiction loaded with untrusted details. And this is true even in pagan cultures.

Thus the "exegesis" part of the equation is simple - it is expected to be taken "as truth" as intended by the author and as the most likely reception by his intended reader.

Just admitting to that obvious fact is huge for Christians when it comes to Bible accounts.

Because we generally talk about the Bible being the "Word of God" as Christ says of Moses' text in Mark 7:6-13.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

I argue that they are fiction - I never argue that those authors intended their readers to regard their accounts as fiction.

Exegesis deals with the intent of the author and the most like point being made to the author's intended reader.

And here you make my point.

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.

But it does tell us about the intent of the Author and it does tell us about the most likely way it was to be accepted by the reader contemporary to the author.

And that is HUGE when it comes to Christian exegesis.

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.

you keep bringing this point back as if the point is to convince someone on this thread that Christianity is correct or that the Bible is actually the right text.

I do not consider that as a point that is even under debate in the context of theistic evolutionism on a board like CF --

But if that is where you think your case is best stated - I will agree with you that in that context alone - do you have the uncertainty that you suggest.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[mark kennedy]

My point is that there is no such thing as a popular effort by Christians to munge the 7 day timeline in Genesis 1:2-2:3 to fit evolutionism -- until sometime after Darwin's 1844 manuscript is complete --- and this is no coincidence.

If you mean day means day in Genesis 1, it is 'defined by evening and morning'. The word is yôm (yome Strong's H3117 יום ) - From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), (often used adverbially).

And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen. 1:5)
And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Gen. 1:8)
And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Gen. 1:13)
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Gen. 1:19)
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Gen. 1:23)
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Gen. 1:31)
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (Gen. 2:2)​

Conclusively and definitively proving that evening plus morning equals one day, seven days equals one week, thus Creation Week.

Charles Darwin in the preface to ‘On the Origin of Species’ credits Jean-Baptiste Lamarck with being the first man to propose that ‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species.’ This, Darwin argues,

‘all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition..’​

You see, neither an exposition of Genesis 1 nor the evidence from natural science supports Darwinism. If Creationists understood that they would stop arguing against evolution, focus on Darwinism and the rest is like shooting fish in a barrel. There is a logical disproof of Darwinism, Charles Darwin proposed it himself

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

There actually is one, the human brain. If the evolutionist refuses to admit a null hypothesis they must admit their philosophy is unscientific except no one ever calls them on it. Especially creationists.

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or redwood tree in one step (Science On Trial: The Case For Evolution, by Dr. Douglas J. Futuyma)​

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[BobRyan]

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.

And once you get that Moses is trying to give the same historical narrative account for origins as are other competing source - and that he expects to be taken truthfully even in the details that will later form the basis for legal code as in Ex 20:11 - then it is easy to understand that the 7 day timeline was not taken as fiction - but as fact.

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

The interest in the form of writing is the exegetical interest in the intent of the Author.

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.

Because they "need to do it" as even Darwin admitted.

The author of that idea himself - admits to the problem. This is not something I just thought up.

But most evolutionary creationists actually steer away from trying to read evolution into Genesis or even anywhere into the bible.

Then they would have left the 7 day timeline alone since they are not trying to accomodate their belief in evolutionism and we would have seen no change in popular attempts to darwinize Genesis 1 after the 1844 manuscript by Darwin was completed (and of course published much later).

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.

A key point in the whole subject of exegesis.

What was the author's intent? The intent was clearly to present a 7 day creation week as if that is what actually happened. The author never argues against it.

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.

Since on the subject of origins is in fact "state-of-the-quesswork" at best. Urey-Miller thought they could come up with something - didn't work and I don't see much of an attempt to resurrect that effort.

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 is not the dirt or the sky making the case - it is evolutionism.

Blind faith evolutionism predates radio-carbon metrics.

Since I believe God gave us both the created world

fact.

, which clearly has an ancient history extending back billions of years

fiction.

Mixing fact with fiction is how we even get to evolutionism in the first place.

, 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.

Excellent. You bring your external-to-the-text agenda to the text and then conclude something about the Bible and God that is an extension of your faith in evolutionism first and foremost.

But I prefer not to corrupt the text with outside agendas. Let the text speak for itself.

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.

You are describing eisegesis perfectly -- the attempt to bend the text to fit an outside agenda no matter the fact that you know this was not the intent of the author or the way the text would have been read.

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.

There was no popular movement in Christendom to bend the text of Genesis 1 because as even you noted - it is obvious even to this very day that Moses' text shows that he was talking about a 7 day week.

it is only in post 1844 Darwinist times that such a movement actually gained popular acceptance.

And that is no coincidence.

As the atheists have stated "Darwin made it possible for the first time to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

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.

Deep time in space is not a problem for the Bible -- for two reasons.

1. The Gen 1:2-2:3 only covers the 7 day timeline for life on earth and our Sun and our Moon. Not the entire universe.

2. Even the big bang idea admits that there was superluminal expansion.

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

What you can't find is popular acceptance of that idea in Christendom until after the 1844 manuscript by Darwin.

So, it was geology, not evolution, that first challenged a recent, quick creation.

I do not deny movements before 1844 to try and undercut the Genesis 1 and 2 accounts on origins. (though many were also just going after the flood account).

My argument is that there was no popular acceptance of such within Christendom until after 1844.

As for the argument from science observation - there are many geochronometers that give a short-age for the earth. But for the sake of this thread I wanted to stick with the issue of the evidence from the text itself.

We seem to be in agreement when it comes to what the intent of the author was in the case of Gen 1:2-2:3 so I consider the exchange helpful in several areas.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

My point is that there is no such thing as a popular effort by Christians to munge the 7 day timeline in Genesis 1:2-2:3 to fit evolutionism -- until sometime after Darwin's 1844 manuscript is
complete --- and this is no coincidence.​

​

If you mean day means day in Genesis 1, it is 'defined by evening and
morning'.


The word is yôm (yome Strong's H3117 יום )

Indeed.

Just as in Ex 20 "six DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX Days the Lord made".

- From an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literally (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next),

All numbered examples for "evening and morning" refer to a single day in the Bible.

And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Gen. 1:5)
And the evening and the morning were the second day. (Gen. 1:8)
And the evening and the morning were the third day. (Gen. 1:13)
And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. (Gen. 1:19)
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. (Gen. 1:23)
And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. (Gen. 1:31)
And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made (Gen. 2:2)​

Conclusively and definitively proving that each day is in fact one evening and morning consecutive contiguous days with plants arriving day 3 and the Sun -- day 4.

evening plus morning equals one day, seven days equals one week, thus Creation Week.

Charles Darwin in the preface to ‘On the Origin of Species’ credits Jean-Baptiste Lamarck with being the first man to propose that ‘the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species.’ This, Darwin argues,

‘all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition..’​

You see, neither an exposition of Genesis 1 nor the evidence from natural science supports Darwinism.

Agreed. My point is that Darwinism gives rise within Christianity to a popular movement for undoing the 7 day element of the text.

If Creationists understood that they would stop arguing against evolution, focus on Darwinism and the rest is like shooting fish in a barrel. There is a logical disproof of Darwinism, Charles Darwin proposed it himself

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

There actually is one, the human brain.

And the Eye.

And a single eukaryote cell.

If the evolutionist refuses to admit a null hypothesis they must admit their philosophy is unscientific except no one ever calls them on it. Especially creationists.

Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence, for no natural process could possibly form inanimate molecules into an elephant or redwood tree in one step (Science On Trial: The Case For Evolution, by Dr. Douglas J. Futuyma)​

I agree with you that there are a number of flaws in the evolutionist's argument -- from science alone.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[mark kennedy]

Agreed. My point is that Darwinism gives rise within Christianity to a popular movement for undoing the 7 day element of the text.

They are lazy intellectually, if they can dismiss any essential doctrine, like creation it guts Christian theism.

And the Eye.

Or the human brain.

And a single eukaryote cell.

Specifically Animalia cells.

I agree with you that there are a number of flaws in the evolutionist's argument -- from science alone.

What you don't seem to realize is the science has very little to do with it. When you get into mutation rates and the highly conserved nature of brain related genes they simply don't have any arguments.

 

[gluadys]

Indeed an account of history --

So for those needing some pointers on where to go to find that the text itself argues against its own 7 day timeline -- start here.

I think we can all agree that the text clearly states 7 days.

From here we can ask two questions:

1. Are the "days" ordinary days in the 24-hour cycle of day and night?

Clearly there are different schools of thought on this and have been for 2,000 years or more. In particular, the fact that the text describes the sun not being created until the fourth day suggested even to ancient commentators that at least the first three days, and possibly all of them, were not what humans ordinarily call a day in the 24-hour cycle of day and night.

Some also noted that there is no closure to the 7th day and that the writer to the Hebrews treats the day of rest as present and future as well as past. This also suggested to the ancients that perhaps all the creative days were days in God's sight, not days as typically conceived in human experience.

The discovery of a very long pre-human history of the planet in the 17th century, and the further explorations of of geological history led to a wide-spread acceptance among Christian theologians and scientists that the pre-human history either fitted into a gap in the Genesis record (Gap theology) or that the creative days of Genesis 1 were symbolic of long ages (Day-Age theory).

So, while a naive reading certainly is that the days are exactly like the days of a normal week, in-depth study reveals that this is not so certain.

2. Are the days literal (actual days in the early history of the planet) or literary?

There is no question that the creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a masterpiece of literary art. So another school of thought is that the author uses the days not to refer to actual historical days, but as a literary device for framing the story of creation. Three arguments are proposed here:
a) The complete text depicts creation as a great temple and the text describes creation as the work of an architect/builder from the initial framing of the structure (days 1-3 which overcome the 'bohu' (formlessness)) of v. 2 through the furnishing of the structure (days 4-6 which overcome the 'tohu' (emptiness)) of v. 2 to the placing of the image of the deity in the temple (Let us make human beings in the image of God) and the final opening of the temple for meditation and contemplation (day 7).

b) The parallelism of the first 3 days with the last 3 days, even to recounting two creation events on days 3 & 6, together with the categorical nature of what is created on each day suggests a thematic rather than a chronological ordering of events.

c) The strategic use of motifs from similar pagan creation accounts including the primordial existence of a watery world, a wind moving across it & (on day 5) the simple creation of sea monsters combined with an order of creation paralleling that of the primacy of the gods depicted in those other accounts indicates an intention to exalt God as the only God and supreme over the gods of all other nations. What other nations worship as divine are depicted here as structures & ornaments made by a greater Creator. So the whole also acts as a polemic against pagan gods.

Taken together this analysis suggests the "days" are a literary and mnemonic device rather than actual historic days on which certain events occurred.

Narratives claiming to give us an accurate account of history are many.

As Christians we tend to believe the Christian ones and avoid the pagan ones.

It is our way.

Exactly. This does not discount the other narratives as narratives. They look, sound, feel just as "historical" as the narratives we take seriously.

Therefore, we cannot say there is any literary difference between the narratives. If we accept some as history and reject others as not history, it is on other grounds---not something we draw from the text, but rather an extra-textual consideration.

IOW, the Genesis text is no more clearly historical than the tales of Baal, Ashur or Marduk. Nor are any of these any more clearly historical than tales from ancient Egypt, Greece, India, China or Rome.

From a literary perspective, they are all the same genre of writing.

Whether they are or are not history has to be decided apart from the text in itself. There are no clues in the text as to whether or not any of these stories, including the biblical creation accounts, is a record of actual historical events.

What this tells us is that there is no such genre as "historical narrative". The genre is "narrative". Narrative itself can take several literary forms including prose, poetry and drama. In the case of Genesis 1:1-2:3 as well as the following account in Gen. 2:4-3:24, it is narrative prose.

Whether it is narrative prose about actual history cannot be decided from a study of the text. Either some extra-textual facts have to tell us it is history, or we simply choose to believe it is history because we are Christians and this is our story.

Now this raises another question:

Are Christians bound as an act of faith, to read the creation account as actual history?

All narrative does not claim to be historic fact. Some narratives claim to be pure fiction. Most novels are written as narratives claiming to be fiction.

No, novels do not claim to be fiction. The writers of novels claim their stories are fiction. But they do not do so in the novel itself. Very often, prior to the beginning of the text, one finds a disclaimer by the author to the effect that the work is fictional and any resemblance to actual persons and events is coincidental. But this is not part of the novel. It is not something the novel itself claims. If you had only the text of the novel in manuscript with no table of contents, no acknowledgements, no preface, no disclaimer, no description of the author and no advertising blurbs, you would find nothing in the text claiming it to be fiction. Especially the more realistic ones that do not include magic or aliens would seem to be recounting an actual sequence of events in which actual people participated.

With the biblical text we are in the position of someone reading a text which may be historical/partly historical/non-historical and with no extra-textual clue as to which it is.

The idea that if any narrative claims to tell the truth about actual historic events - then all narratives must be historical - is a new idea to me.

Never heard of such a thing.

Well, now that you think about it, you actually have. You have just become accustomed to relying on extra-textual clues like disclaimers to tell you that a text is not historical. And no doubt, on your actual knowledge of what is and is not history. You haven't actually tried to decipher a text of unknown providence as to whether or not it is history.

Just the opposite.

All can recognize many texts trying to present themselves as reliable trustworthy accounts of real events - rather than rubbish.

All can recognize that the intent of those authors is always to write something that the reader is expected to believe rather than toss out as rubbish and unreliable.

That means that Moses was expecting his newly freed slaves to believe the historic account rather than distrust it as foolish fiction loaded with untrusted details. And this is true even in pagan cultures.

However, saying the author intends the reader to believe the account is history is quite a different kettle of fish than agreeing that it is history.

You are making the case---and I think you are absolutely right---that Egyptian, Babylonian, Syrian and other ancient writers set out the creation stories of their peoples with the intent that these be recognized as reliable, trustworthy accounts of creation---just as the writer of Genesis did.

Indeed, those pagan writers no doubt believed themselves that what they were writing was actual history--just as the writer of Genesis did.


So we have parallel belief and parallel intent, but different accounts of creation.

Is it enough to say: we believe the story of our people because it is the story of our people received from our god(s)?

That takes us no nearer to verifying any one of them as actual history.

Basically, you seem to be saying that by "historical narrative" you mean a narrative whose author intends the work to be received as history whether it is objective history or not. It may be, from our perspective, pure fiction, yet it is "historical narrative" if that was the author's intent.

Using what I perceive to be your definition, the Genesis account could be just as fictional as the Enuma Elish, but both are "historical narratives" not because they actually record history, but because the author's intention and expectation is that they be received as such.

That is quite different from most creationist claims that the Genesis creation accounts are "historical narrative".

 

[gluadys]

Because we generally talk about the Bible being the "Word of God" as Christ says of Moses' text in Mark 7:6-13.

Actually, the bible itself tells us the "Word of God" is Christ (and most references to the Word in scripture are references to Christ, not to the bible). However, you are correct; by virtue of the fact that the bible is a word about the Word, it is also commonly referred to as the "Word of God". It is still important theologically to remember that the primary reference is to the second person of the Trinity, with the title accorded to the writings dependent on the primary reference. When scripture tells us the Word of God is eternal, that cannot be a reference to books produced by human authors.

I argue that they are fiction - I never argue that those authors intended their readers to regard their accounts as fiction.

Great. Now the question becomes: why make an exception of the biblical accounts?

you keep bringing this point back as if the point is to convince someone on this thread that Christianity is correct or that the Bible is actually the right text.

No, it is not a matter of convincing Christians this is the right text. It is a matter of exploring what that means. We do, after all, have another text from the Creator which we must take into consideration as well.

Because they [theistic evolutionists/evolutionary creationists] "need to do it" [change the timeline of the Genesis text] as even Darwin admitted.

The author of that idea himself - admits to the problem. This is not something I just thought up.

No, actually they don't. Darwin was not infallible. He got some things wrong, even as a scientist. This is where he got something wrong as a theologian.

Of course, he was also influenced by the already existing responses to geological time such as Day-Age theology.

Then they would have left the 7 day timeline alone since they are not trying to accomodate their belief in evolutionism and we would have seen no change in popular attempts to darwinize Genesis 1 after the 1844 manuscript by Darwin was completed (and of course published much later).

Here I would say you are simply out of date. Yes, the Day-Age idea, which actually has deep roots in ancient questions about the nature of the days of Genesis 1, was easily transferred from geology to evolution. But it doesn't get a lot of play among evolutionary creationists now. Day-Age is a concordist strategy--an attempt to show there is concord or agreement between the text of scripture and the findings of modern science. This is generally regarded now as a failed strategy.

Evolutionary creationists today are more partial to another long Christian tradition about scripture (as explicated, inter alia, by Augustine and John Calviin) called "accommodationism". By this is meant that God in speaking to his people, clothed his message in terms they were familiar with, as a parent accommodates their communication with their children to the level of their understanding. So there is indeed discrepancy between the pre-scientific biblical descriptions and today's scientific descriptions of the same phenomena. One of the plainest is that in scripture the earth is described as being motionless, fixed or established firmly in place, not moving, unless its very foundations are shaken. But modern science describes the earth as continuously moving in orbit around the sun.

These two descriptions cannot both be factually correct, but if we recognize that biblical authors had no access to the evidence of the earth's motion, and so perceived it as a stable body at rest, and God couched important theological messages about himself as Creator within the view they knew and understood, the integrity of the text is preserved without any necessity of denying the physical facts we are aware of.

Since on the subject of origins is in fact "state-of-the-quesswork" at best. Urey-Miller thought they could come up with something - didn't work and I don't see much of an attempt to resurrect that effort.

Statements like this only tell me you are getting your information about science from unreliable sources. In fact, the Urey-Miller experiment has been replicated dozens of times, using different variables of water and atmospheric gases and have been just as successful as the original. Of course, if you think the original was a failure, you probably harbour some misconception of what it was about.

It is not the dirt or the sky making the case - it is evolutionism.

And statement such as these tell me you are prepared to dismiss the testimony of God in the created order sight unseen. If you chose to look, you would find that rocks, fossils, stars and DNA do support deep time, deep space, and evolution.

Blind faith evolutionism predates radio-carbon metrics.

Strawman. No faith, much less blind faith, is needed to conclude the validity of evolutionary theory from the evidence.

Since I believe God gave us both the created world,

fact.

which clearly has an ancient history extending back billions of years

fiction.


Mixing fact with fiction is how we even get to evolutionism in the first place.

Calling fact fiction is simply hiding from the truth.

Excellent. You bring your external-to-the-text agenda to the text and then conclude something about the Bible and God that is an extension of your faith in evolutionism first and foremost.

I don't need to bring an agenda. I bring what God made--the heavens and the earth bear witness to deep space, deep time, evolutionary history and the glory of God.

But I prefer not to corrupt the text with outside agendas. Let the text speak for itself.

As long as you listen to the whole text God gave us. Pitting the inspired written text against the text of God's created works is not a Christian option.

There was no popular movement in Christendom to bend the text of Genesis 1 because as even you noted - it is obvious even to this very day that Moses' text shows that he was talking about a 7 day week.

I don't know what you mean by popular. Day-Age theology was widespread in universities and theological schools before 1844. Hugh Miller was introducing it to average readers via a church magazine while Darwin's work was still unpublished. I doubt he was the only preacher doing so.

In any case it was well-accepted both by those who welcomed Darwin's work and those who rejected it for about a century.

Deep time in space is not a problem for the Bible -- for two reasons.

1. The Gen 1:2-2:3 only covers the 7 day timeline for life on earth and our Sun and our Moon. Not the entire universe.

Incorrect. It also covers the stars, therefore, the whole universe.

2. Even the big bang idea admits that there was superluminal expansion.

Now you are resorting to eisegesis, trying to insert modern science into ancient scripture, the very thing you condemn when it comes to evolution.

I think you are correct when you condemn attempts to put evolution into the bible. But you cannot turn around then and put other concepts unknown in ancient times into the bible either.

As for the argument from science observation - there are many geochronometers that give a short-age for the earth.

Again this tells me that you simply don't have the relevant facts at hand. Your sources of scientific information are not reliable.

We seem to be in agreement when it comes to what the intent of the author was in the case of Gen 1:2-2:3 so I consider the exchange helpful in several areas.

in Christ,

Bob

Yes, we agree on what the text says. We agree on the intent of the author. Neither of these, however, warrants the adjective "historical" in reference to the narrative, except in your unique interpretation which allows "historical" to refer to the authors' intent and readers' expectations rather than to an actual conformity with actual history.

 

[BobRyan]

I think we can all agree that the text clearly states 7 days.

From here we can ask two questions:

1. Are the "days" ordinary days in the 24-hour cycle of day and night?

"evening and morning where the 6th day" -- pretty hard to ignore that.

And The Bible is clear that "evening and morning" is a real day when we see how God embeds the Creation account in legal code "Six days you shall labor...for in Six days the Lord made" Ex 20:11

So then were the newly freed slaves from Egypt "really" going to come up with some sort of wildly convoluted "insert' into the text trying to get 'evening and morning were the 6th day" to be something else?

Really?

And that solves the issue of exegesis.

Clearly there are different schools of thought on this and have been for 2,000 years or more. In particular, the fact that the text describes the sun not being created until the fourth day suggested even to ancient commentators that at least the first three days, and possibly all of them, were not what humans ordinarily call a day in the 24-hour cycle of day and night.

Some also noted that there is no closure to the 7th day and that the writer to the Hebrews treats the day of rest as present and future as well as past.

All of them do so by ignoring the iron band that Moses places around the subject with that Ex 20:8-11 legal code summarizing Genesis 1:2-2:3 in Ex 20:11.

A "school of thought" that requires that we ignore the details at the salient point of the subject -- is not much school.

The discovery of a very long pre-human history of the planet in the 17th century, and the further explorations of of geological history led to a wide-spread acceptance among Christian theologians and scientists that the pre-human history either fitted into a gap in the Genesis record (Gap theology) or that the creative days of Genesis 1 were symbolic of long ages (Day-Age theory).

Mainline Christianity did not adopt this wholesale until the schools accepted it.

The schools did not accept it until scientific agreement was reached in the 2nd half of the 19th century.

In any case - the point is that it is only an "external agenda" -- external to the text - that drives the "need" to re-invent the text itself.

So, while a naive reading certainly is that the days are exactly like the days of a normal week, in-depth study reveals that this is not so certain.

If you are saying that Moses is a naive and so also his readers - (perhaps because this is how you view the newly freed egyptian slaves) then you have already solved the question of exegeting the text.

Even by your own logic - it means exactly what it says.

There is no question that the creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a masterpiece of literary art. So another school of thought is that the author uses the days not to refer to actual historical days, but as a literary device for framing the story of creation.

Not the sort of creative 'insert" -- creative munging to meet the future needs of geology or darwin that the slaves of Egypt -- or Moses were likely to 'insert'.

Three arguments are proposed here:
a) The complete text depicts creation as a great temple

not a single word 'in the text' -- about a "great temple"

here is an example of "flights of fancy" not likely to be the "knee jerk insert of the Egyptian slaves" into the historic account.

and the text describes creation as the work of an architect/builder from the initial framing of the structure (days 1-3 which overcome the 'bohu' (formlessness)) of v. 2 through the furnishing of the structure (days 4-6 which overcome the 'tohu' (emptiness)) of v. 2 to the placing of the image of the deity in the temple (Let us make human beings in the image of God) and the final opening of the temple for meditation and contemplation (day 7).

In fact it took a while to dream that one up - it was not around 2000 years ago much less 3500 year ago.

Taken together this analysis suggests the "days" are a literary and mnemonic device rather than actual historic days on which certain events occurred.

Many imaginative inserts can be dreamed up that are in no way derived from the egyptian slaves at Sinai.

Exactly. This does not discount the other narratives as narratives. They look, sound, feel just as "historical" as the narratives we take seriously.

Because that is the "intent of the Authors" in all those cases.

When gets to the point of Exegesis.

And solves the issue for Bible students interested in what the text says rather than looking for ways to "bend it" no matter the context, content and most likely meaning to the primary intended audience.

And that -- is instructive.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed, those pagan writers no doubt believed themselves that what they were writing was actual history--just as the writer of Genesis did.


So we have parallel belief and parallel intent, but different accounts of creation.

Is it enough to say: we believe the story of our people because it is the story of our people received from our god(s)?

That takes us no nearer to verifying any one of them as actual history.

Basically, you seem to be saying that by "historical narrative" you mean a narrative whose author intends the work to be received as history

Indeed - it is the intent of the author and it is the most likely meaning that the text would have had to its primary intended audience - contemporary with the writer.

I.e. - exegesis.

And that is the end-point if one is simply looking at the issue of "what did Moses intend" .

whether it is objective history or not. It may be, from our perspective, pure fiction, yet it is "historical narrative" if that was the author's intent.

Indeed - he claims it is "truth" or 'The real world view' or whatever name you want to give it - but as Christians we know that in Moses' case this is correct but in pagan cultures they are simply wrong.

Using what I perceive to be your definition, the Genesis account could be just as fictional as the Enuma Elish, but both are "historical narratives" not because they actually record history, but because the author's intention and expectation is that they be received as such.

Indeed. and If we were both atheists that is exactly what we would conclude.

That is quite different from most creationist claims that the Genesis creation accounts are "historical narrative".

It fits the claim perfectly -- no Christian claims that atheists only accept the Bible as being historically accurate while pagan narratives are just myth.

It is the Christian view - but it is not what Christians claim Atheists or Hindus think of it.

We are saying the same thing.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

Because we generally talk about the Bible being the "Word of God" as Christ says of Moses' text in Mark 7:6-13.
​

Actually, the bible itself tells us the "Word of God" is Christ

And in Mark 7 above - Christ tells us that the Ten Commandments written by Moses are 'The Word of God" as does James in James 1 claim about all the Law of God.

There is no either-or fallacy being practiced by the Bible writers - it is both-and when it comes to "The Word".

(and most references to the Word in scripture are references to Christ, not to the bible).

It is not a numbers game - it is a fact finding effort. Christ tells us the OT text of Moses is the Word of God.

And once you solve the exegesis issue regarding the intent of the Author and the meaning it would have to the contemporary readers - you have settled the actual meaning of what Christ called "The Word of God".

However, you are correct; by virtue of the fact that the bible is a word about the Word, it is also commonly referred to as the "Word of God". It is still important theologically to remember that the primary reference is to the second person of the Trinity,

And the Second Person of the Trinity calls the writing of Moses "The Word of God" in this case.

Christ argues in Mark 7 that they are not allowed to go against it - because it is "The Word of God" -- and there He speaks to the religious magisterium of His day.

Great. Now the question becomes: why make an exception of the biblical accounts?

The Bible is accepted as "The Word of God".

once you exegete the text and know the intend meaning you have just discovered the intent - and meaning - of what Christ calls "The Word of God".

And that is huge.

No, it is not a matter of convincing Christians this is the right text. It is a matter of exploring what that means.

Which is why Christians are so married to the idea of exegeting the text rather than eisegeting into it anything our external-agendas may wish.

We do, after all, have another text from the Creator which we must take into consideration as well.

But we don't have high-priests and prophets of "nature" or "creation" giving us infallible statements about it. Rather we have students, scientists with their own agendas giving us "the state of the guesswork" on any given speculation about origins.

God in speaking to his people, clothed his message in terms they were familiar with, as a parent accommodates their communication with their children to the level of their understanding. So there is indeed discrepancy between the pre-scientific biblical descriptions and today's scientific descriptions of the same phenomena. One of the plainest is that in scripture the earth is described as being motionless, fixed or established firmly in place, not moving, unless its very foundations are shaken. But modern science describes the earth as continuously moving in orbit around the sun.

And Einstein proved that motion can be described in terms of observational frame of reference. Thus as along as acceleration is taken into account you may accurately describe your environment by assuming that your own frame of reference is stationary.

These two descriptions cannot both be factually correct,

Einstein would beg to differ.

Statements like this only tell me you are getting your information about science from unreliable sources. In fact, the Urey-Miller experiment has been replicated dozens of times, using different variables of water and atmospheric gases and have been just as successful as the original. Of course, if you think the original was a failure, you probably harbour some misconception of what it was about.

They utterly failed to produce the amino acids in the chiral orientation needed for the "building blocks" necessary for even a single cell.

Their attempt proved that abiogenesis does not work. No not even when scaled back in scope to just provide the basic 'set' of amino acids one would need "as a start" for the massive project.

And statement such as these tell me you are prepared to dismiss the testimony of God in the created order sight unseen.

I am not saying that - I am saying that in the case of Christian theistic evolutionists you have a special case. One where we know the intent of the author of Genesis 1:1-2:3 and we know that it is the Word of God - and we know that it is truth.

It is a special case - that deserves some attention.

If you chose to look, you would find that rocks, fossils, stars and DNA do support deep time, deep space, and evolution.

In the case of fossils -- As the atheist scientist Collin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History observed "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science ..for there is no way to put them to the test".

In such a story-telling-system you expect frauds such as Simpson's horse series on display at the Smithsonian - known to be a 50 year fraud by Othaniel Marsh just shortly after the Smithsonian set up the display - but it was until then "the best example" of blind faith evolutioniism.

Incorrect. It also covers the stars, therefore, the whole universe.

Moses is careful to tell us that on day 4 only Two great lights are made - not a zillion-and-two.

His parenthetical "he made the stars also" does not require that they are one of the two lights made.

Again this tells me that you simply don't have the relevant facts at hand. Your sources of scientific information are not reliable.

It surprises me that you think you know what my sources are.

Yes, we agree on what the text says. We agree on the intent of the author.

And we agree that Christ calls it "The Word of God"

Thus you have the intent of the author to present a historical narrative -- and the result is "The Word of God" - beyond question according to Christ.

Neither of these, however, warrants the adjective "historical" in reference to the narrative,

Until you decide that Moses was telling the truth.

except in your unique interpretation which allows "historical" to refer to the authors' intent and readers' expectations

You are deleting details in your summary -- necessary to make your point.

The detail that Moses intends to provide an accurate historic account is stated in the text itself.

The fact that the Word of God is true - is something many Christians are going to sign up for.

There is no "actual historian" contemporary to Moses telling us not to believe him whom we might trust 'above the Word of God".

I think you and I both know that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What you don't seem to realize is the science has very little to do with it. When you get into mutation rates and the highly conserved nature of brain related genes they simply don't have any arguments.

It escapes me how that is not a reference to science.

 

[BobRyan]

Another point from history

Until the late 19th century, creation was taught in nearly all schools in the United States, often from the position that the literal interpretation of the Bible is inerrant.





With the widespread acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution in the 1860s after being first introduced in 1859, and developments in other fields such as geology and astronomy, public schools began to teach science that was reconciled with Christianity by most people,


but considered by a number of early fundamentalists to be directly at odds with the Bible.

In the aftermath of World War I, the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy brought a surge of opposition to the idea of evolution, and following the campaigning of William Jennings Bryan several states introduced legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Such legislation was considered and defeated in 1922 in Kentucky and South Carolina, in 1923 passed in Oklahoma, Florida, and notably in 1925 in Tennessee, as the Butler Act.[2] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) offered to defend anyone who wanted to bring a test case against one of these laws.
​

 

[gluadys]

"evening and morning where the 6th day" -- pretty hard to ignore that.

And The Bible is clear that "evening and morning" is a real day when we see how God embeds the Creation account in legal code "Six days you shall labor...for in Six days the Lord made" Ex 20:11

So then were the newly freed slaves from Egypt "really" going to come up with some sort of wildly convoluted "insert' into the text trying to get 'evening and morning were the 6th day" to be something else?

Don't underestimate them. Just because people are illiterate doesn't mean they are stupid or can't think things through.

In any case, Moses was not a newly-freed slave; he had been raised as Pharaoh's daughter and had the best education Egypt could offer.

All of them do so by ignoring the iron band that Moses places around the subject with that Ex 20:8-11 legal code summarizing Genesis 1:2-2:3 in Ex 20:11.

The ten commandments is not the whole of the law. There are other commands relating to the Sabbath that refer to 7 years and to multiples of 7 years. And there is still the possibility that we are speaking of divine days which can be thousands of years each. Long before Bishop Ussher it was surmised by Jewish and Christian students of scripture that each creative day was at least 1,000 years long, since with God a thousand years is as a day.

The ancient Israelites would not be averse to seeing the seven days of a week as symbolizing the seven days of creation--whatever the "historical" period of time involved in creation. Especially as in their culture, numbers in general had symbolic meanings.

Mainline Christianity did not adopt this wholesale until the schools accepted it.

The schools did not accept it until scientific agreement was reached in the 2nd half of the 19th century.

School & church were much the same, especially in Europe. Most institutions of higher learning were only open to professing Christians and many of the faculty were clergy. Some institutions, such as the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge still required their faculty to be celibate even 300 years after the monasteries in Britain had been dissolved, whether they took orders or not.

The close links of clerics to academia meant that all scientific discussions were also theological discussions with the same people engaging in all aspects of the debate.

The separation of church and academia was a movement that gained traction in Britain during Darwin's lifetime--though I don't know to what extent if any he participated in it. His colleague Thomas Huxley was very involved in favour of the separation.

In any case - the point is that it is only an "external agenda" -- external to the text - that drives the "need" to re-invent the text itself.

You make the assumption that your own interpretation has no extra-textual input, but it does. All interpretations are informed by some extra-textual input.

If you are saying that Moses is a naive and so also his readers - (perhaps because this is how you view the newly freed egyptian slaves) then you have already solved the question of exegeting the text.

By "naive" I mean simply reading without studying--taking the text at face value. It has nothing to do with levels of intelligence or education. People lacking one or both will typically read a text naively, but a naive reading in itself doesn't imply their lack. Any time someone starts asking "What does the text mean by X?" Or hears something read and thinks, "there seems to be a problem here--something that needs to be explained," they are no longer reading naively, even if they are illiterate and never had any schooling.

Not the sort of creative 'insert" -- creative munging to meet the future needs of geology or darwin that the slaves of Egypt -- or Moses were likely to 'insert'.

Not a matter of inserting anything. This is strictly exegesis and very much within the abilities of freed slaves as long as they are capable of intelligent reflection.

not a single word 'in the text' -- about a "great temple"

Unlike similes, metaphors, especially extended metaphors, can be more subtle--implying rather than stating. I don't think it is difficult to see the temple motif in the text.

here is an example of "flights of fancy" not likely to be the "knee jerk insert of the Egyptian slaves" into the historic account.

It doesn't need to be inserted. It is already there to be pulled out (exegeted) from the text. And why would being a slave mean the Israelites could not grasp the metaphor? Metaphorical thinking is pretty instinctive in humans.

Indeed - it is the intent of the author and it is the most likely meaning that the text would have had to its primary intended audience - contemporary with the writer.

I.e. - exegesis.

And that is the end-point if one is simply looking at the issue of "what did Moses intend" .

So far, so good.

Indeed - he claims it is "truth" or 'The real world view' or whatever name you want to give it - but as Christians we know that in Moses' case this is correct but in pagan cultures they are simply wrong.

We don't know that at all.

First, note that your are bringing in an extra-textual criterion. We do not know from the texts which creation account is the real one (or even if any of them are.) We have to be Christian to "know" this text is the right one. We don't expect a Hindu to accept this text in preference to the teachings of the Vedas or the Mahabharata. A Hindu would "know" that those texts were the right ones.

Do the texts themselves tell us this? Not at all. Our culture, our family, our teachers, our tradition leads us to the text that we "know" is right. So a Christian "knows" that the biblical story is right while a Hindu "knows" that a different story is right. Not on the basis of anything in the text, but on the basis of extra-textual inculcation of traditional cultural beliefs.

So, of course, we don't really know this text is correct at all. We appropriate it as truth through faith.

It fits the claim perfectly

No, it doesn't. Most young-earth creationists would not refer to pagan creation accounts as historical based on the intention of the author and expected reception by his hearers. Most add a third criterion: not only must the author intend the account to be heard as history, not only must the audience receive it as history, it must also actually concord with known history.

Now, I think this is what you are aiming for. But to this point you have not explicitly added that third criterion. You have so far limited yourself to saying "It was the author's intent to record history". What you haven't said so far is "and what he wrote is actual history."

When you are prepared to add that clause, then your claim becomes what most creationists mean by "historical narrative".

The Bible is accepted as "The Word of God".

If you read me carefully, you know I expressed agreement with that. Just pointing out that it is the dependent relationship of the bible to the living Word, Jesus Christ, that allows for that acceptance. Martin Luther once called the bible "the cradle of Christ". Without Christ the bible would not be the word of God.

But we don't have high-priests and prophets of "nature" or "creation" giving us infallible statements about it.

Right. Something that opponents of scientific knowledge often forget. What we do have are God-given gifts of perception and rational thought through which we can engage with God's world. (Given the creation mandate, it makes sense that God would give us the tools by which we can learn about and understand and act within his creation.)

Rather we have students, scientists with their own agendas giving us "the state of the guesswork" on any given speculation about origins.

Derogatory terminology does not undercut the actual achievements of students of nature.

And Einstein proved that motion can be described in terms of observational frame of reference. Thus as along as acceleration is taken into account you may accurately describe your environment by assuming that your own frame of reference is stationary.

Einstein would beg to differ.

I will leave it to the physicists to comment on this. (Maybe Shernren can offer a comment). But I doubt that you understand Einstein.

They utterly failed to produce the amino acids in the chiral orientation needed for the "building blocks" necessary for even a single cell.

Their attempt proved that abiogenesis does not work. No not even when scaled back in scope to just provide the basic 'set' of amino acids one would need "as a start" for the massive project.

Neither of these was a hoped for result of the experiment. Therefore failure to produce these results is not a failure of the experiment.

The actual hoped for result was the production of organic molecules in an inorganic environment solely through unmediated chemical reactions. That result was achieved--not only in the first famous experiment but to a greater or lesser degree in dozens of follow-up experiments.

I am not saying that - I am saying that in the case of Christian theistic evolutionists you have a special case. One where we know the intent of the author of Genesis 1:1-2:3 and we know that it is the Word of God - and we know that it is truth.

It is a special case - that deserves some attention.

And the solution of that special case must incorporate all of God's truth: the truth of both general revelation in the works of creation and of special revelation in the teachings of Moses, the prophets, Jesus and the apostles and (at least partially) preserved in the scriptures. To say we can ignore or dismiss the first on the basis of the second is no more an option for Christians than to say we can ignore or dismiss the second on the basis of the first.

In the case of fossils -- As the atheist scientist Collin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History observed "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science ..for there is no way to put them to the test".

In such a story-telling-system you expect frauds such as Simpson's horse series on display at the Smithsonian - known to be a 50 year fraud by Othaniel Marsh just shortly after the Smithsonian set up the display - but it was until then "the best example" of blind faith evolutionism.

As I said, your sources are not reliable. Here you have been suckered into repeating a pair of old quote mines. I take it you have not checked out the context of either in the original writings.

Moses is careful to tell us that on day 4 only Two great lights are made - not a zillion-and-two.

His parenthetical "he made the stars also" does not require that they are one of the two lights made.

I never claimed the stars were among the "great lights" and it is unseemly for you to imply I did. But the inclusion of the remark that "he made the stars also" extends the scope of the account beyond the solar system to take in the whole visible universe.

It surprises me that you think you know what my sources are.

Not difficult when I have seen the same arguments from dozens of other people and have even read some of the sources. There is also a handy reference to many of these untenable arguments--with good citations of both your sources and the original scientific sources at Quote Mine Project: "Lack of Identifiable Phylogeny" and
An Index to Creationist Claims

The detail that Moses intends to provide an accurate historic account is stated in the text itself.

Where? Genesis 1 does not have an intro like the Gospel of Luke where he sets out his aims and methods.

Another point from history

Until the late 19th century, creation was taught in nearly all schools in the United States, often from the position that the literal interpretation of the Bible is inerrant.

With the widespread acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution in the 1860s after being first introduced in 1859, and developments in other fields such as geology and astronomy, public schools began to teach science that was reconciled with Christianity by most people,


but considered by a number of early fundamentalists to be directly at odds with the Bible.

In the aftermath of World War I, the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy brought a surge of opposition to the idea of evolution, and following the campaigning of William Jennings Bryan several states introduced legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Such legislation was considered and defeated in 1922 in Kentucky and South Carolina, in 1923 passed in Oklahoma, Florida, and notably in 1925 in Tennessee, as the Butler Act.[2] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) offered to defend anyone who wanted to bring a test case against one of these laws.

First this refers only to American history. Second, it probably refers to public schools which at the time would be mostly elementary schools. Naturally it takes time for new ideas, whether they be scientific, social, artistic or theological to make their way from professional discussion to a class for 10 year olds. In fact, my secondary school science textbook from the mid-20th century, did not include the topic of evolution. And religion classes in both school and church simply taught the bible stories as if they were actual historical events. Nevertheless, those attending post-secondary institutions were receiving teaching not available yet to a high-school student and had been for up to a century.

the citation correctly says "a number of fundamentalists" not "all fundamentalists" considered evolution contrary to the bible. A few leaders of the fundamentalist movement of the early 20th century were cautiously accepting of evolution.

These excerpts don' t mention attitudes to deep (geological) time. Many leaders of the fundamentalist movement, including William Jennings Bryan, B.B, Warfield and others accepted that the days of Genesis were actually long geological ages. And this irrespective of whether they were open or closed to evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

"evening and morning where the 6th day" -- pretty hard to ignore that.

And The Bible is clear that "evening and morning" is a real day when we see how God embeds the Creation account in legal code "Six days you shall labor...for in Six days the Lord made" Ex 20:11

So then were the newly freed slaves from Egypt "really" going to come up with some sort of wildly convoluted "insert' into the text trying to get 'evening and morning were the 6th day" to be something else?

Don't underestimate them. Just because people are illiterate doesn't mean they are stupid or can't think things through.

In any case, Moses was not a newly-freed slave; he had been raised as Pharaoh's daughter and had the best education Egypt could offer.

Exegesis is the objective method of rendering the meaning of the text based on the way it is written and what the intended contemporary reader would have known from it.

You yourself admit that the text is clearly teaching a 7 day week and this is confirmed in "six days you shall labor..for in six days the Lord made.." Ex 20:8-11 -- in legal code.

Now you argue that the newly freed slaves from Egypt would have to be stupid or unnable to think to conclude the same thing about the text and 7 days - as you just did.

Are you simply "trying to have it both ways"??

The ten commandments is not the whole of the law. There are other commands relating to the Sabbath that refer to 7 years and to multiples of 7 years.

None of them refer to the 7th day Sabbath. As even the Baptist Confession of Faith, the Westminster Confession of faith, D.L. Moody, the Catholic Dies Domini document all admit.

The point of the Legal Code is that the Bible never bases Legal Code in fiction, parable, myth.

No not even once.

And the "six days you shall labor...for in six indefinite undefined ages God made" munging of the text is not what Moses did, is not what the newly freed Egyptian slaves would have known to do - and is not what the text says.

And there is still the possibility that we are speaking of divine days which can be thousands of years each.

There is no " and evening and morning was one unknown amount of thousands of years " in all of scripture.

No not even one.

Nor would the people at Sinai known to insert such a thing for "evening and morning".

The ancient Israelites would not be averse to seeing the seven days of a week as symbolizing the seven days of creation--whatever the "historical" period of time

A flight of fancy they were not inclined to make - and which was basically rejected in Christianity in general until the 19th century.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In any case - the point is that it is only an "external agenda" -- external to the text - that drives the "need" to re-invent the text itself.​

​

You make the assumption that your own interpretation has no extra-textual input, but it does. All interpretations are informed by some extra-textual input.

Sadly for your response this is NOT a "he-said she-said" simpleton issue - this is a matter of what is actually in the text -- so glaringly obvious that even you admit that the text is talking about a real 7 day week even though it does not serve your interest to admit it.

How much more would the simple egyptian slaves 3500 years ago have taken the text at face value - that even you agree is most likely to be speaking about "six DAYS you shall labor...for in Six DAYS the Lord made" --- i.e. the obvious.

If you are saying that Moses is a naive and so also his readers - (perhaps because this is how you view the newly freed egyptian slaves) then you have already solved the question of exegeting the text.

By "naive" I mean simply reading without studying--taking the text at face value. It has nothing to do with levels of intelligence or education. People lacking one or both will typically read a text naively, but a naive reading in itself doesn't imply their lack. Any time someone starts asking "What does the text mean by X?" Or hears something read and thinks, "there seems to be a problem here--something that needs to be explained," they are no longer reading naively, even if they are illiterate and never had any schooling.

In any case you already said it is most likely to be talking about 7 days - and in fact neither you nor anyone else makes a case against the 7 day week of Gen 1:2-2:3 and Ex 20:8-11 - FROM the text - rather you make it "in spite of the text" statements to the contrary.

even though time after time the flights of fancy you are attempting are shown beyond a doubt to have no support in the text, not at all the most likely and obvious meaning to readers 3500 years ago and you don't even agree with your own conclusion when you yourself admit that it is a real 7 day week that is being written out for us.

Not the sort of creative 'insert" -- creative munging to meet the future needs of geology or darwin that the slaves of Egypt -- or Moses were likely to 'insert'.​

​

Not a matter of inserting anything. This is strictly exegesis

Not even remotely when you start off admitting that the text is written in the form of talking about a 7 day week and I point out this is "cast in stone" in legal code "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made". Ex 20:8-11


You keep arguing that intelligent reflection without any objection from biology, fossil records, radiometrics, geology was going to force the newly freed slaves of egypt to "invent" the text "Six days you shall labor...for in six indefinite eons of the Lord made..." no matter what the the actual text said to the contrary.

And in this case even you admit it speaks of a real 7 day week!

A more self-conflicted argument on your part could hardly be constructed.

in Christ,

Bob