Why is earth's AGE important to you?

[Job 33:6]

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:8‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬
[8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭8:2‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬
[2] the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,

The Hebrew word for sky and heavens are the same. It's just different depending on the English translation you use. The term is referring to the solid dome raqia.

View attachment 339715
In Genesis 1:14, birds fly above the earth across the [flat] face of the raqia. Just as the spirit hovers over the face of the waters.

The birds do not fly "in" the raqia. And the stars are set "in" the raqia in Genesis.

So unless you think that birds are flying among the stars and sun and moon, you're incorrect.

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:14‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬
[14] And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,

And the verses, Genesis 8:2 and Genesis 7:11, they are referring to releasing of the waters above.

The theological implication is that God has removed his protective hand and has allowed the waters of chaos to uncreate earth. It's basically a reversal of creation, and that's why there are so many parallels between Genesis chapter 1 and the narrative of Noah's flood. People might not be aware of this if they haven't studied the subject though.

But I can assure you that this is exactly what the text is describing and I can go into detail if you would like.

 

[didactics]

And the verses, Genesis 8:2 and Genesis 7:11, they are referring to releasing of the waters above.

The theological implication is that God has removed his protective hand and has allowed the waters of chaos to uncreate earth. It's basically a reversal of creation, and that's why there are so many parallels between Genesis chapter 1 and the narrative of Noah's flood. People might not be aware of this if they haven't studied the subject though.

But I can assure you that this is exactly what the text is describing and I can go into detail if you would like.

I'm fairly new to this debate, so I was not aware some were arguing NME context in Genesis 1-2. I've heard about it a little but I need to look into it more. But I'm reading a counter argument from Answers in Genesis that says of Genesis 1:20 that only the NKJV translates the phrase literally.

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”

In Genesis 1:14, birds fly above the earth across the [flat] face of the raqia. Just as the spirit hovers over the face of the waters.

The birds do not fly "in" the raqia. And the stars are set "in" the raqia in Genesis.

So unless you think that birds are flying among the stars and sun and moon, you're incorrect.

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:14‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬
[14] And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,

Correct, birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament. But my point is this, Genesis 8:2 does not use the word raqia for the English word sky. Or even the work "floodgates" does not translate as the Hebrew raqia. What is being released is from the face of the firmament which is in the region of the heavens where the atmosphere the clouds are, not the region of the heavens where the stars are.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm fairly new to this debate, so I was not aware some were arguing NME context in Genesis 1-2. I've heard about it a little but I need to look into it more. But I'm reading a counter argument from Answers in Genesis that says of Genesis 1:20 that only the NKJV translates the phrase literally.

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”


Correct, birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament. But my point is this, Genesis 8:2 does not use the word raqia for the English word sky. Or even the work "floodgates" does not translate as the Hebrew raqia. What is being released is from the face of the firmament which is in the region of the heavens where the atmosphere the clouds are, not the region of the heavens where the stars are.

Ok, well. There's nothing to counter. I would recommend spending some time reading up on ancient near east context and cosmology in the old testament. Answers in Genesis is simply out of its league. And if or when you have questions about ancient near east context, feel free to ask.

A brief overview of the historic context associated with ancient near east cosmology can be found here:

Other recommended material:

Michael Heiser - Genesis and the Ancient Near East

The Unseen Realm - documentary film with Dr. Michael S. Heiser

This will help orient you in the discussion.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm fairly new to this debate, so I was not aware some were arguing NME context in Genesis 1-2. I've heard about it a little but I need to look into it more. But I'm reading a counter argument from Answers in Genesis that says of Genesis 1:20 that only the NKJV translates the phrase literally.

Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”


Correct, birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament. But my point is this, Genesis 8:2 does not use the word raqia for the English word sky. Or even the work "floodgates" does not translate as the Hebrew raqia. What is being released is from the face of the firmament which is in the region of the heavens where the atmosphere the clouds are, not the region of the heavens where the stars are.

And regarding Genesis 8:2, the raqia was called heaven. As noted in my response.

Genesis‬ ‭1:8‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬
[8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭8:2‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬
[2] the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,

The words "sky" is the same as heavens in Hebrew. You can try other translations.


‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:8‬ ‭ESV‬‬
[8] And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

That's shamayim

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭8:2‬ ‭ESV‬‬
[2] The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained.

But check out the other resources. They'll help explain.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I have not been frequenting this thread since I said basically why a pre-adamic age is important to
grasping aspects of spiritual warfare imo.

Having stated this a few times I have not posted here lately.

To this comment above I would ask -
If God overthrew a world prior to verse 2 and recovered the earth (with some further creation) having in mind man as its center,
could this statement still be true?

For in six days Jehovah made heaven and earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore Jehovah blessed the Sabbath day and sanctified it. (Exo. 20:11)

No because there couldn’t have been a world for anyone to inhabit before verse 2. There was no dry land before verse 2.

 

[didactics]

And regarding Genesis 8:2, the raqia was called heaven. As noted in my response.

Genesis‬ ‭1:8‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬
[8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭8:2‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬
[2] the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,

The words "sky" is the same as heavens in Hebrew. You can try other translations.


‭‭Genesis‬ ‭1:8‬ ‭ESV‬‬
[8] And God called the expanse Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

That's shamayim

‭‭Genesis‬ ‭8:2‬ ‭ESV‬‬
[2] The fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained.

But check out the other resources. They'll help explain.

Right, but context seems to show that heaven or sky can be described in different ways. Nowhere is it said that the sun, moon and stars are across the face of the firmament but it is said of the birds. Secondly, I'm not sure I like that English translation in Genesis 1:8 calling the firmament dome as if it's shaped as a semicircle or bowl. Given the other translation I like that more because heaven can be described as the place the atmosphere and clouds are which seems to fit better with the phrase "across the face of the firmament" whereas the space occupied by the sun, moon and stars can be described as just in the firmament.

But I will check out the other sources. Dr. Michael Heiser is helpful in a lot of ways but I'm not sold on what he's saying about Genesis 1-2 as borrowing ancient near east (ANE) ideas of cosmology. I'm not exactly sure how pervasive the flat earth view was back then. I'm sure more people held to the view compared to today, but there were also some brilliant minds back then as well. And as strange as it sounds, I don't think all of their views were unwarranted. For example, maybe Sheol is in the heart of the earth somewhere and that still could be true in a spherical earth.

 

[oikonomia]

No because there couldn’t have been a world for anyone to inhabit before verse 2. There was no dry land before verse 2.

The land was not dry of course because it was buried by wet water.
In day #3 He commanded that it appear.

And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place,
and let the dry land appear; and it was so. (v.3)

I believe as Christ existed and was buried and raised on the third day, the hint is that
a destruction previously took place of land. On the third day it was raised pointing also to
the resurrection of Christ.

Destruction / Reconstruction

 

[Job 33:6]

Right, but context seems to show that heaven or sky can be described in different ways. Nowhere is it said that the sun, moon and stars are across the face of the firmament but it is said of the birds. Secondly, I'm not sure I like that English translation in Genesis 1:8 calling the firmament dome as if it's shaped as a semicircle or bowl. Given the other translation I like that more because heaven can be described as the place the atmosphere and clouds are which seems to fit better with the phrase "across the face of the firmament" whereas the space occupied by the sun, moon and stars can be described as just in the firmament.

But I will check out the other sources. Dr. Michael Heiser is helpful in a lot of ways but I'm not sold on what he's saying about Genesis 1-2 as borrowing ancient near east (ANE) ideas of cosmology. I'm not exactly sure how pervasive the flat earth view was back then. I'm sure more people held to the view compared to today, but there were also some brilliant minds back then as well. And as strange as it sounds, I don't think all of their views were unwarranted. For example, maybe Sheol is in the heart of the earth somewhere and that still could be true in a spherical earth.

"context".

Yes so, birds fly across the face of the firmament. Similar to how the spirit hovers upon the face of the waters. That is to say, in front of it. Whereas stars are "in" it, kind of like a thumbtack being stuck inside a cork board. It's similar to how the ancient Greeks or Ptolemy viewed space of multiple crystalline raqias or spheres.

The firmament is shaped like a semi-circle dome. It's certainly not spherical shaped. There is no spherical earth in the Bible.

One other way that some Bible scholars view the term is similar to a balloon, where, the Bible says that the firmament was formed in the midst of the waters. Imagine blowing a balloon up in the middle of or underwater. So the balloon consists of both the open air inside the balloon, as well as the stretchy rubber membrane on the outside that holds the waters at bay.

This may be a preferable translation, in which case, the raqia would include "multiple heavens" in a sense, the heavens where birds fly, and the solid dome. Here are verses again, to assist:

See proverbs 8:28-29 in light of the balloon analogy.

And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”
Genesis 1:6

God made the dome, and separated the waters which were below the dome from the waters which were above the dome; and it was so. God called the dome heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
Genesis 1:7‭-‬8

And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,
Genesis 1:14

In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of the heavens were opened.
Genesis 7:11

the fountains of the deep and the windows of the heavens were closed, the rain from the heavens was restrained,
Genesis 8:2

And God said, “Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the dome of the sky.”
Genesis 1:20

And he dreamed that there was a ladder set up on the earth, the top of it reaching to heaven; and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it. And the Lord stood beside him [or stood above it] and said, “I am the Lord, the God of Abraham your father and the God of Isaac; the land on which you lie I will give to you and to your offspring;
Genesis 28:12‭-‬13

“You shall not make for yourself a divine image with any form that is in the heavens above or that is in the earth below or that is in the water below the earth.
Exodus 20:4

and they saw the God of Israel. Under his feet there was something like a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
Exodus 24:10

Thick clouds enwrap him, so that he does not see, and he walks on the dome of heaven.’
Job 22:14

He has described a circle [earths shape] on the face of the water between light and darkness. “The pillars of heaven tremble, and they are astounded at his rebuke.
Job 26:10‭-‬11

Can you, like him, spread out the skies, hard as a molten mirror?
Job 37:18

Hast thou with him spread out the sky, Which is strong, and as a molten looking glass?
Job 37:18

can you join him in spreading out the skies, hard as a mirror of cast bronze?
Job 37:18

Have you entered the storehouse of the snow, or seen the armory of the hail,
Job 38:22
God stores his weapons and mana in storehouses to help the isrealites in battle, and to give gifts to His people.

So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Joshua 10:13

‭‭Ecclesiastes‬ ‭1:5‬ ‭
The sun rises, and the sun goes down; to its place it hurries, and there it rises again.

Yet in all the world their line goes out, and their words to the end of the world. In them he has pitched a tent for the sun,
Psalms 19:4

The tree that you saw, which grew great and strong, so that its top reached to heaven and was visible to the end of the whole earth,
Daniel 4:20

The Lord sits enthroned over the flood; the Lord sits enthroned as king forever.
Psalms 29:10

Yet he commanded the skies above and opened the doors of heaven,
Psalm 78:23

you set the beams of your chambers on the waters, you make the clouds your chariot, you ride on the wings of the wind,
Psalms 104:3

He causes the clouds to arise from the end of the earth, makes lightning bolts accompany the rain, and brings the wind out of his storehouses.
Psalms 135:7

To him who spread out the earth above the waters, for his loyal love endures forever.
Psalms 136:6

Praise him, highest heavens, and waters above the heavens. Let them praise the name of Yahweh, because he commanded and they were created. And he put them in place *forever and ever*, by a decree he gave that will not pass away.
Psalms 148:4‭-‬6

Praise Yah. Praise God in his sanctuary; praise him in his mighty firmament.
Psalms 150:1

and all the host of heaven shall rot. And the skies shall roll up like a scroll, and all their host shall wither like the withering of a leaf from a vine, or like the withering from a fig tree.
Isaiah 34:4

It is he who sits above the *circle* of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to live in;
Isaiah 40:22

Over the heads of the angels there was something like a dome, shining like crystal, spread out above their heads.
Ezekiel 1:22

And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire stone; and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form.
Ezekiel 1:26

And I looked, and look! On the dome that was above the head of the cherubim something like a stone of sapphire, and like the appearance of the shape of a throne it appeared above them.
Ezekiel 10:1

He made strong the skies above, When the springs of the deep became fixed, When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, When He marked out the foundations of the earth;
Proverbs 8:28-‬29

The sky vanished like a scroll rolling itself up, and every mountain and island was why removed from its place.
Revelation 6:14

After this I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven! And the first voice, which I had heard speaking to me like a trumpet, said, “Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after this.”
Revelation 4:1

“Where were you at my laying the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you possess understanding. Who determined its measurement? Yes, you do know. Or who stretched the measuring line upon it? On what were its bases sunk? Or who laid its cornerstone,
Job 38:4‭-‬6

The earth and all its inhabitants are shaking; I steady its columns. Selah
Psalms 75:3

For the pillars of the earth are the LORD's, And he hath set the world upon them.
1 Samuel 2:8

 

[Job 33:6]

Right, but context seems to show that heaven or sky can be described in different ways. Nowhere is it said that the sun, moon and stars are across the face of the firmament but it is said of the birds. Secondly, I'm not sure I like that English translation in Genesis 1:8 calling the firmament dome as if it's shaped as a semicircle or bowl. Given the other translation I like that more because heaven can be described as the place the atmosphere and clouds are which seems to fit better with the phrase "across the face of the firmament" whereas the space occupied by the sun, moon and stars can be described as just in the firmament.

But I will check out the other sources. Dr. Michael Heiser is helpful in a lot of ways but I'm not sold on what he's saying about Genesis 1-2 as borrowing ancient near east (ANE) ideas of cosmology. I'm not exactly sure how pervasive the flat earth view was back then. I'm sure more people held to the view compared to today, but there were also some brilliant minds back then as well. And as strange as it sounds, I don't think all of their views were unwarranted. For example, maybe Sheol is in the heart of the earth somewhere and that still could be true in a spherical earth.

A flat earth view was held by all nations surrounding Isreal in the time of the old testament. As far as any historical records are concerned, this was the consensus view, universally.

Genesis in particular, the waters of the deep, the spirit hovering upon the waters, the revealing of dry land etc., these concepts can be found dating back to ancient Egypt, Babylon, assyria etc. and these concepts go back greater than 1,000 BC (I would say probably earlier than 1200BC), which is several centuries earlier than the earliest text anyone has ever found proposing a spherical earth.

This view sheds some light on Egyptian context of coffin texts, pyramid texts, the Memphite theology etc.

And this video talks about Egyptian and mesopotamian views:

Also, some would say, rather than borrowing ideas, that it was simply a matter of a common shared cultural context. Or a cultural cognitive environment.

Similar to how you and I can talk about astronomy, or sports, or politics, or [insert modern cultural topic] without copying someone else. Or think of the English language. I don't have to copy someone else's writings for me to write this paragraph in English. We simply share a culture in which English is widely used. And that would be why the Bible is in Hebrew, because it's written to specific people, in a specific time, place, culture, and in a specific view of the cosmos.

 

[Job 33:6]

Right, but context seems to show that heaven or sky can be described in different ways. Nowhere is it said that the sun, moon and stars are across the face of the firmament but it is said of the birds. Secondly, I'm not sure I like that English translation in Genesis 1:8 calling the firmament dome as if it's shaped as a semicircle or bowl. Given the other translation I like that more because heaven can be described as the place the atmosphere and clouds are which seems to fit better with the phrase "across the face of the firmament" whereas the space occupied by the sun, moon and stars can be described as just in the firmament.

But I will check out the other sources. Dr. Michael Heiser is helpful in a lot of ways but I'm not sold on what he's saying about Genesis 1-2 as borrowing ancient near east (ANE) ideas of cosmology. I'm not exactly sure how pervasive the flat earth view was back then. I'm sure more people held to the view compared to today, but there were also some brilliant minds back then as well. And as strange as it sounds, I don't think all of their views were unwarranted. For example, maybe Sheol is in the heart of the earth somewhere and that still could be true in a spherical earth.

Lastly,

Micheal heiser's entire unseen realm book is based on ancient near east divine council writings. He didn't just make that up, he got his divine council worldview out of ancient near east Babylonian, and mesopotamian texts.

That's why he has so much material on giants in the Bible, because he's familiar with Enoch and it's roots with the literature of the mesopotamian apkallu.

So if you appreciate heiser's work, this is somewhat of the next step.


The same writings that Micheal Heiser uses in his book "reversing hermon" and resources, are the same resources used in identifying things like the identity of leviathan as well, hence why Heiser writes about leviathan often.

 

[didactics]

Lastly,

Micheal heiser's entire unseen realm book is based on ancient near east divine council writings. He didn't just make that up, he got his divine council worldview out of ancient near east Babylonian, and mesopotamian texts.

That's why he has so much material on giants in the Bible, because he's familiar with Enoch and it's roots with the literature of the mesopotamian apkallu.

So if you appreciate heiser's work, this is somewhat of the next step.


The same writings that Micheal Heiser uses in his book "reversing hermon" and resources, are the same resources used in identifying things like the identity of leviathan as well, hence why Heiser writes about leviathan often.

But here's the thing, it's not possible to maintain that Moses was borrowing ANE concepts for the creation account and still say that the earth is young, right? Because those who espouse this view typically hold to an evolutionary worldview. It's my understanding that core tenants of faith are important to consider here. Hominids did not exist; the whole human race comes from Adam and Eve. Where exactly do you draw the line between ANE influence and what is plainly taught in scripture? Is it even possible to say that Genesis 1-11 is largely figurative and maintain that there was no death (of living creatures) before the fall and that the flood of Noah's day was global? Maybe some can blend those two ideas together but I don't think it's consistent.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The land was not dry of course because it was buried by wet water.
In day #3 He commanded that it appear.

And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place,
and let the dry land appear; and it was so. (v.3)

I believe as Christ existed and was buried and raised on the third day, the hint is that
a destruction previously took place of land. On the third day it was raised pointing also to
the resurrection of Christ.

Destruction / Reconstruction

Wow that’s quite a stretch my friend. I mean if we’re going to go that far out of context one could use that same verse to say that it’s a metaphorical statement allowing them to go back to a life of sin doing drugs and getting drunk at strip clubs every weekend as long as they stop doing it on Mondays. Can you provide any contextural evidence to support your interpretation?

 

[oikonomia]

Wow that’s quite a stretch my friend.

The land appearing could have been on some other day. It was on the third day.
Christ is the real center of the whole Bible. It should not surprise anyone that
types of Christ are seen in Genesis. All life could not come about until the land came out from under
the death waters.

So we have been regenerated through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

God and Father . . . according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope
through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, (1 Pet. 1:3)

Actually when I read the whole OT with the major and minor prophets, what do I see when I step back?
Destruction / Reconstruction. Judgment / Redemption. Death followed by Resurrection.

I mean if we’re going to go that far out of context one could use that same verse to say that it’s a metaphorical statement allowing them to go back to a life of sin doing drugs and getting drunk at strip clubs every weekend as long as they stop doing it on Mondays. Can you provide any contextural evidence to support your interpretation?

In brief it is evident that the day the ark rested on dry land accoring to the Jewish civil calander
was the same day Jesus rose from the dead according to their sacred calender.

Copied from "The Life Study of Genesis" by Witness Lee.
See https://www.ministrybooks.org/books/reader.php?id=leG5E-ThkUNc

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible is marvelous. Genesis 8:4 says that the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat on the seventeenth day of the seventh month. If you read the Bible carefully along with history and the best lexicons, you will find that, at the time of the Passover in Egypt, the seventh month was changed to the first (Exo. 12:2). The Jews have two kinds of calendars, the civil calendar and the sacred calendar. The civil calendar was the old one, and the sacred calendar was the new one, which began from the first Passover. When God told the Israelites to have the Passover, He told them that that month had to be counted as the first month of the year. In Hebrew the name of that month was Abib (Exo. 13:4), which means sprouting, budding, fresh ears of corn. This signifies that, in the eyes of God, the Passover was counted as a new beginning of life. Why do I point this out? Because the Lord Jesus was crucified on the day of the Passover, on the fourteenth day of the month (Exo. 12:6; John 18:28). [424] According to the sacred calendar, He was crucified in the first month, and according to the civil calendar, He was crucified in the seventh month, the same month as when the ark rested upon the mount. The Lord was crucified on the fourteenth day of that month and was resurrected three days later. Thus, according to the sacred calendar, Christ was resurrected on the seventeenth day of the first month. According to the civil calendar, it was on the seventeenth day of the seventh month, the very day that the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. So, in that early type of the ark resting upon the mountain, we were told the exact date of the resurrection of Christ. This is wonderful.

In 1 Peter 3:20-21, Peter connected the resurrection of Christ to the ark. He said that “eight souls, were brought safely through by water: which figure also now saves you, baptism...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” The figure of baptism also saves us through resurrection. I say once again that the ark resting upon the mountaintop signified Christ’s resurrection out from the death waters. The month and day of both were exactly the same.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This insight gives me ground to suspect also the dry land coming up out from under the dark waters is a type
of Christ's resurrection also.

We know Paul under inspiration said the Scriptures preached to gospel to Abraham. Why not notice
it preached to the writer and readers of Genesis also?

And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles out of faith, announced the gospel beforehand to Abraham: “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” (Gal. 3:8)

 

[didactics]

Ok, well. There's nothing to counter. I would recommend spending some time reading up on ancient near east context and cosmology in the old testament. Answers in Genesis is simply out of its league. And if or when you have questions about ancient near east context, feel free to ask.

A brief overview of the historic context associated with ancient near east cosmology can be found here:

Other recommended material:

Michael Heiser - Genesis and the Ancient Near East

The Unseen Realm - documentary film with Dr. Michael S. Heiser

This will help orient you in the discussion.

I just got done listening to one of the videos titled, "I Visited the Creation Museum. This is the Absolutely Insane Stuff I Saw." by Ben S. It was interesting to hear some of his counterarguments but in all honesty it just leaves me puzzled. I'm not convinced that all this is to say that somehow we descended from ape-like ancestors or that the Big Bang is real. I don't know what to make of these findings and the criticism on AiG. I think what it goes to show is that AiG doesn't always make the best apologetical arguments but it leaves me feeling on the fence not knowing what to think about it all. In short I'm not on board with what is taught about evolutionary biology. But thanks for pointing out these sources and bringing this to my attention.

 

[Job 33:6]

I just got done listening to one of the videos titled, "I Visited the Creation Museum. This is the Absolutely Insane Stuff I Saw." by Ben S. It was interesting to hear some of his counterarguments but in all honesty it just leaves me puzzled. I'm not convinced that all this is to say that somehow we descended from ape-like ancestors or that the Big Bang is real. I don't know what to make of these findings and the criticism on AiG. I think what it goes to show is that AiG doesn't always make the best apologetical arguments but it leaves me feeling on the fence not knowing what to think about it all. In short I'm not on board with what is taught about evolutionary biology. But thanks for pointing out these sources and bringing this to my attention.

The point is not to argue in favor of evolution. The point is to help people understand that the Bible is not "scientifically concordant". Ie, it's not a science textbook. It's context is ancient near east, not 21st century. And so it's not reasonable to anticipate 21st century science in a text that exists and came out of a time period prior to 21st century science.

 

[Job 33:6]

I just got done listening to one of the videos titled, "I Visited the Creation Museum. This is the Absolutely Insane Stuff I Saw." by Ben S. It was interesting to hear some of his counterarguments but in all honesty it just leaves me puzzled. I'm not convinced that all this is to say that somehow we descended from ape-like ancestors or that the Big Bang is real. I don't know what to make of these findings and the criticism on AiG. I think what it goes to show is that AiG doesn't always make the best apologetical arguments but it leaves me feeling on the fence not knowing what to think about it all. In short I'm not on board with what is taught about evolutionary biology. But thanks for pointing out these sources and bringing this to my attention.

Imagine if I said, "there is water in the trunk".



What am I talking about?



Water in an elephant trunk?

Water in a car trunk?

Water in a tree trunk?



The context of the discussion matters to the question of what it is the Bible is expressing. Simply reading "there is water in the trunk" alone, isn't sufficient for understanding.



The Bible is the same way. Everyone can read what it says, but really it's the context that matters.



The Bible was written thousands of years ago. And with that said, it's context is ancient. It does not speak of modern 21st century concepts.



So for example, social media, the internet, airplanes, helicopters, space ships. Facebook, Santa clause.



These are "modern" concepts of our modern 21st century culture and technology.



The Bible doesn't speak of these things because the authors are not aware of them. Because the Biblical authors lived a long time ago.



So, you mentioned the theory of evolution. Well, evolution was discovered in the mid 1800s. The Bible was written, Genesis in particular, perhaps longer ago than 1,000BC.



And so, it should not be expected to find evidence for evolution in the Bible.

And this is the point of the videos, essentially.

 

[Job 33:6]

But here's the thing, it's not possible to maintain that Moses was borrowing ANE concepts for the creation account and still say that the earth is young, right? Because those who espouse this view typically hold to an evolutionary worldview. It's my understanding that core tenants of faith are important to consider here. Hominids did not exist; the whole human race comes from Adam and Eve. Where exactly do you draw the line between ANE influence and what is plainly taught in scripture? Is it even possible to say that Genesis 1-11 is largely figurative and maintain that there was no death (of living creatures) before the fall and that the flood of Noah's day was global? Maybe some can blend those two ideas together but I don't think it's consistent.

So, I would recommend backing up.

First and foremost, as Christians, we are accountable to the Biblical authors and we have a responsibility to understand the text on their terms.

You're trying to build a house before you've inspected whether the foundation is rock or sand.

So you have to begin by inspecting the foundation, before advancing to theology.

We have to examine the text, what the text says, and what it's context is. And then, after we do that, then we can build theology out from the text.

We cannot build a theology and a hermeneutic, and then read our theology and hermeneutic back into the text.

So, let's start with the text. And see what hermeneutical approach makes the most sense, based on the cultural context of the Bible and based on what the Bible simply states.

We don't want discussions about 21st century science (our modern scientific culture) and theories about the big bang and hominids and all that, we don't want that blurring our ability to simply read the text on its own terms.

So let's just start with the text, start with the cultural background of the Biblical authors. And start with the context in which the text was originally written. And then we can build our from there.


It's like saying that we have to start with Hebrew before we translate. We have to start with the way the original authors wrote and read and reviewed the text. On their terms. In their time. In their age and culture. And then, after we understand the original context, then we can investigate if a modern context "fits" the text, or not.


Summary:

If I said that the falcons attacked the colts, if I lived in the 1600s, it would be unwise to immediately assume that I am talking about 21st century NFL (because that would require me to be a time traveler and to see into the future). The wise thing to do would be to start with the historic context of the 1600s, that is birds attacking horses.

And then only after we understand the statement about birds attacking horses, can we then move a step further by asking the question of if I am talking about NFL football.

 

[Job 33:6]

So, I would recommend backing up.

First and foremost, as Christians, we are accountable to the Biblical authors and we have a responsibility to understand the text on their terms.

You're trying to build a house before you've inspected whether the foundation is rock or sand.

So you have to begin by inspecting the foundation, before advancing to theology.

We have to examine the text, what the text says, and what it's context is. And then, after we do that, then we can build theology out from the text.

We cannot build a theology and a hermeneutic, and then read our theology and hermeneutic back into the text.

So, let's start with the text. And see what hermeneutical approach makes the most sense, based on the cultural context of the Bible and based on what the Bible simply states.

We don't want discussions about 21st century science (our modern scientific culture) and theories about the big bang and hominids and all that, we don't want that blurring our ability to simply read the text on its own terms.

So let's just start with the text, start with the cultural background of the Biblical authors. And start with the context in which the text was originally written. And then we can build our from there.


It's like saying that we have to start with Hebrew before we translate. We have to start with the way the original authors wrote and read and reviewed the text. On their terms. In their time. In their age and culture. And then, after we understand the original context, then we can investigate if a modern context "fits" the text, or not.


Summary:

If I said that the falcons attacked the colts, if I lived in the 1600s, it would be unwise to immediately assume that I am talking about 21st century NFL (because that would require me to be a time traveler and to see into the future). The wise thing to do would be to start with the historic context of the 1600s, that is birds attacking horses.

And then only after we understand the statement about birds attacking horses, can we then move a step further by asking the question of if I am talking about NFL football.

Scientific concordism involves the belief that the Biblical authors had knowledge of things in the future that we might today consider to be "scientific". That the Biblical authors must have advanced scientific knowledge.

For example, in the above slideshow by John Walton, we see a statue on the right. It looks like it might be a baseball pitcher about to throw a ball. This is an incorrect way of understanding the Bible. As it takes 21st century information, and tries to cram it backwards into historical records, where it does not actually exist or belong. The statue is of an ancient musician.

Scientific concordism is similar. It involves taking modern scientific ideas (evolution, big bang, plate tectonics etc.) and the reader then takes their 21st century brain, and tries to inappropriately cram it backwards into the Bible.

Taking 21st century information, and trying to force it into the Bible. Bending the Bible. Forcing it to say things that it doesn't actually say.


Old earth creationists do this all the time. Maybe the Bible describes evolution or "day" in Genesis actually means "millions of years". This is scientific concordism. And YECs do the same thing, just in reverse. Such as, acting as if leviathan is a dinosaur despite the fact that it breathes fire and has multiple heads (see Psalm 74:14) or that it is slain in the end times (Isaiah 27:1) though it's not clear why God would be upset with a dinosaur in the 2nd coming.

These issues are removed once a person removes scientific concordism from their hermeneutic.

This video can help explain:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

 

[didactics]

View attachment 339785

Scientific concordism involves the belief that the Biblical authors had knowledge of things in the future that we might today consider to be "scientific". That the Biblical authors must have advanced scientific knowledge.

For example, in the above slideshow by John Walton, we see a statue on the right. It looks like it might be a baseball pitcher about to throw a ball. This is an incorrect way of understanding the Bible. As it takes 21st century information, and tries to cram it backwards into historical records, where it does not actually exist or belong. The statue is of an ancient musician.

Scientific concordism is similar. It involves taking modern scientific ideas (evolution, big bang, plate tectonics etc.) and the reader then takes their 21st century brain, and tries to inappropriately cram it backwards into the Bible.

Taking 21st century information, and trying to force it into the Bible. Bending the Bible. Forcing it to say things that it doesn't actually say.


Old earth creationists do this all the time. Maybe the Bible describes evolution or "day" in Genesis actually means "millions of years". This is scientific concordism. And YECs do the same thing, just in reverse. Such as, acting as if leviathan is a dinosaur despite the fact that it breathes fire and has multiple heads (see Psalm 74:14) or that it is slain in the end times (Isaiah 27:1) though it's not clear why God would be upset with a dinosaur in the 2nd coming.

These issues are removed once a person removes scientific concordism from their hermeneutic.

This video can help explain:

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

These are all interesting points, however someone like John Walton if I'm not mistaken is the one who popularized this ANE hermeneutic and I don't see any young earth creationists adopting this method. It seems that the only logical conclusion is that if Genesis 1-11 is only meant to be interpreted spiritually then we are left with no information about the beginning. How do we know Adam and Eve really existed then? If death of living creatures happened before the fall, then the door is open to evolutionary assumptions. I would say the main thrust of the argument is that Genesis 1:6-7 does seem to be describing something hard to understand. But how can I be certain it's speaking about a solid dome that everyone in the ancient times would know to be a reference to flat earth cosmology? Supposing the Pentateuch was written in the 15th century BC, I'd have to know the culture of that time which I know nothing about.

 

[Blaise N]

Hey my friend!


I really don’t pay attention to earths age,and generally scoff at the idea of animals “evolving millions of years”,I don’t pay any attention to it.I generally hold a similar view that God himself told Moses lI am who I am”,for me it’s “the earth is as the Lord made it” age is irrelevant to reality and hinders focus towards Jesus.