So, if God set the record straight, what He had Moses write up must be correct.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I believe God inspired the author of Genesis to rewrite the common Babylonian creation account, setting the record straight about who created the Earth and why He did it. Scientific questions pertaining to exactly how it happened were besides the point, and of little interest to God or the ancient Near Eastern people, whose culture sought to ascribe meaning to the world, rather than scientific methodology.
Spiritually correct, yes, given that was Moses' primary concern.So, if God set the record straight, what He had Moses write up must be correct.
Spiritually correct, yes, given that was Moses' primary concern.
Scientifically correct, no. There are many scientific inaccuracies in the Bible, many of which parallel those same inaccuracies in the Babylonian Enuma Elish, as I have stated already. But why would we hold that against a culture who predated our modern understanding of science by a few thousand years? If God didn't want man's limited perspective and understanding of the earth to enter into the Bible, then why would He inspire man to record the Scriptures in the first place, rather than simply dropping them from Heaven as He did the Ten Commandments? Again, I think this is a shortcoming of the concordist perspective, and an obvious point in favour of accomodationalism. God accomodated Himself to a particular time and culture so that they might understand Him.
The Bible speaks of more than just the sun rising in the east. It says that the sun "hurries" back to where it rises (Ecc 1:5). It says the sun is not a star (1 Cor 15:40-41). It says the earth is flat "like clay under a seal" (Job 38:13-14). It says the sky (or "firmament") is a solid structure (Job 37:18) with openings (Gen 7:11). It says that stars can fall to earth (Mark 13:25). It says the moon produces light (Mat 24:29).The sun rising in the East may be (may be?) a scientific aberration and "accomodating" man's view.
Doesn't it?The Bible speaks of more than just the sun rising in the east. It says that the sun "hurries" back to where it rises (Ecc 1:5).
It does NOT says that there.It says the sun is not a star (1 Cor 15:40-41).
Please give me a break: it's poetic language there.It says the earth is flat "like clay under a seal" (Job 38:13-14).
Same poetic language. Do you read the contexts of these verses????It says the sky (or "firmament") is a solid structure (Job 37:18)
How do you know it was not so? Did you ever figure out where it rains and where it doesn't and why? Is a high pressure system caused by wind or is wind the result? Do you know anything about that?with openings (Gen 7:11).
Well, ever seen falling start in an August night?It says that stars can fall to earth (Mark 13:25).
It doesn't say that at all. It says the Moon shall not give her light. Read more carefully.It says the moon produces light (Mat 24:29).
These are all very out-dated ways of viewing the cosmos, all with parallels in the Babylonian creation account (and other non-canonical Jewish writings, too). You're free to believe that all these many references (and more) were inspired metaphor by God, rather than literal accounts, though you would also have to believe that God inspired the same metaphors in the surrounding Mesopotamian societies as well, to be consistent. I suspect it is more consistent to simply admit that God accomodated His message of salvation to the Near Eastern customs of Moses' day.
You're entitled to your suspicion.
1 Cor 15:40-41 says,"The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."It does NOT says that there.
So what did God mean when he said "the earth takes shape like clay under a seal"? There are other passages in the Bible that imply a flat earth as well (Isaiah 40:22; Daniel 4:10-11; Matthew 4:8). Would you argue that they are all poetic?Please give me a break: it's poetic language there.
So what did God mean, then, when He said that the sky was "hard as a mirror of cast bronze" if He wasn't describing what physical properties it exhibited?Same poetic language. Do you read the contexts of these verses????
Because when Sputnik broke the atmosphere in 1957, it didn't run into any solid walls.How do you know it was not so?
Yes. But they're not stars. They're meteors. Stars, which are enormous balls of burning gas, don't fall to the earth, contrary to what the Bible says.Well, ever seen falling start in an August night?
I did. It says "the Moon shall not give her light." Whose light shall it not give? The moon's light. Not the sun's reflected light. The moon's light. This stems from a straightforward reading of the passage. The Bible implies the moon gives off its own light, as implied in Isaiah 13:10; Isaiah 30:26; Matthew 24:29; and Mark 13:24. Such a view was completely consistent with that of the other Near Eastern societies of the time. There's no reason to pretend otherwise. Same goes for everything else I mentioned above. Just read what the Jewish Talmud has to say about the shape of the cosmos:It says the Moon shall not give her light. Read more carefully.
???? You're reading way more than it says.1 Cor 15:40-41 says,"The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor."
If we were to use this passage as a means of learning about the universe in which we live (as so many anti-evolutionists love to do), would it not be fair to conclude that this verse teaches that the sun exhibits different properties from other stars, given that they exhibit different "splendors"?
How literal is this: "he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a gauze curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in;"So what did God mean when he said "the earth takes shape like clay under a seal"? There are other passages in the Bible that imply a flat earth as well (Isaiah 40:22;
And this:Daniel 4:10-11;
"Again the devil takes him to a very high mountain, and shews him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory, "Matthew 4:8).
I'll let you be the judge...Would you argue that they are all poetic?
"Hast thou with him spread out the sky, firm, like a molten mirror?" It seems that the next verse applies: "We cannot order our words by reason of darkness."So what did God mean, then, when He said that the sky was "hard as a mirror of cast bronze" if He wasn't describing what physical properties it exhibited?
What do you think you see when you look at the sky? I think you're not thinking when you say stuff like this.Because when Sputnik broke the atmosphere in 1957, it didn't run into any solid walls.
Why do we call meteors falling stars then if they aren't?Yes. But they're not stars. They're meteors. Stars, which are enormous balls of burning gas, don't fall to the earth, contrary to what the Bible says.
Where does the light come from when you see the moon? Answer: from the moon (otherwise you couldn't see her). Why are people even today calling "moonlight" if it isn't, after so many years of "scientific enlightenment"???
I did. It says "the Moon shall not give her light." Whose light shall it not give? The moon's light. Not the sun's reflected light. The moon's light. This stems from a straightforward reading of the passage. The Bible implies the moon gives off its own light, as implied in Isaiah 13:10; Isaiah 30:26; Matthew 24:29; and Mark 13:24.
I'm not going to address you point-by-point, holdon, because I don't want the details to detract from my main point, which is this: You seem to agree that the Bible's cosmology was written from a phenomenological point of view. That is, the Scriptural authors refer to "falling stars" because that is how meteors appear. The Bible's authors refer to "moon light" because the moon appears to give off light. The Scriptural authors refer to the sun orbiting the earth because that is how it appears. We even use many of the same colloquialisms today, they have become so entrenched in our verbiage.
But these are not scientific claims.
They are very human attempts at describing phenomena in nature, catered to our finite minds. We admit as much when it comes to verses like the ones I cited above, and I don't think it is inconsistent or inconceivable to apply the same logic to our understanding of the Genesis creation account.
Why am I wrong?The Bible isn't wrong; your interpretations are, holdon.
Excellent. So we agree that the Bible wasn't written to address matters of science, given that it was written from a phenomenological perspective.The Bible was not intended to satisfy the curiosity of today's scientists. I guess that's what you're trying to say and I agree with that.
But it is another matter to say the Bible is wrong, because science blah, blah, blah.
Good try.
Here's why I think drawing parallels between the Hebrew and Babylonian creation accounts is in accordance with Occam's Razor:
(i) The details of the creation accounts are comparable (shape of the earth, composition of the firmament, creation of the planet from formless waters, same sequence of creation, etc.).
(ii) Contrary to Gap theology, which is a concordist approach, an accomodationalist approach does not require that we pick and chose between what facets of science to accept. That is, it is consistent with both science and the Bible.
(iii) Accomodationalism recognizes the Hebrews as a people set apart by God, but integrated into a Near Eastern culture (i.e., the pieces of the puzzle fit better, which is why it is of little wonder why Moses referred to the "face of the waters" in Genesis 1, given that the same waters feature prominently in the Enuma Elish account he would have been familiar with).
(iv) The accomodationalist approach is consistent with how God has operated in history (reshaping sinful traditions to accomplish His will... take the Christmas holiday, for example).
If God didn't want man's limited perspective and understanding of the earth to enter into the Bible, then why would He inspire man to record the Scriptures in the first place, rather than simply dropping them from Heaven as He did the Ten Commandments?
Excellent. So we agree that the Bible wasn't written to address matters of science, given that it was written from a phenomenological perspective.
Why, then, should we look to the Bible for answers to scientific questions (e.g., age of the earth, origin of species, relative masses of the elements, etc.)?
Simple, yes. But it doesn't account for the fact that there is no solid geological evidence for a global flood, nor the fact that the Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Flood story of Noah. Therefore, although your interpretation is simple, it does not account for more details than does the accomodationalist interpretation, and as such, does not fulfill Occam's Razor.This is just as simple: Noah told his descendants about the flood. Some of them screwed it up and started raving about Gilgamesh.
You're very good at not answering peoples' questions, and substituting your own instead, so I'll ask again:What does God say about "age of the earth", "origin of species", "relative masses of the elements"?
You're very good at not answering peoples' questions, and substituting your own instead, so I'll ask again:
So we agree that the Bible wasn't written to address matters of science, given that it was written from a phenomenological perspective.
Why, then, should we look to the Bible for answers to scientific questions, as so many anti-evolutionary creationists do (e.g., age of the earth, origin of species, relative masses of the elements, etc.)?
What does God say about "age of the earth", "origin of species", "relative masses of the elements"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?