YECs, please explain Gen 3:15 to me.

[Siyha]

One of the things that continues to strike me about your arguments is definitely not a lack of intelligence as you are very well versed, but is the failure to see the use of foreshadowings contained throughout the Bible. Each foreshadowing is comprised of an actual event to give light to a later more profound event. This too plagued the Israelites all throughout history, they looked for David to come back to be their king, they had no idea that David was a mere glimpse of the Heavenly King who would rule all of Earth.

God does not use metaphors to describe the spiritual, He uses nature and history as clear indicators to be clearly understood so as no one would have an excuse. The Old Testament is God using actual events to foreshadow the redemption to come.

In Romans, we get a picture of humanity as a whole, yet in 1 Corinthians we get a more in depth explanation of how God used Adam in history. The word man and Adam are used independent of each other, they are not being used interchangeably, so there is a great deal of significance placed on how they would be read. The significance becomes profound if one understands that the passage is saying that because sin had a beginning by a specific act, and even that single act of disobedience was planned for by God.

The passage in Genesis (3:15) clearly shows that while Adam had sinned, we learn in Romans that we are all Adam, it is not the other way around and that Adam is all of us. Since the first Adam sinned and the last Adam died, so it is with all Christians, we have all sinned, and like Christ we must pick up our own cross and die on it so Christ may live.

There are so many events in the Old Testament which are parts of the ultimate reality unveiled in Revelation, that is the final revealing of Christ in all his glory. One that I find very intriguing is the book of Ruth and the Kinsman Redeemer, but again this is another example of God using a foreshadowing so that we will have clear understanding as to what Jesus was doing on that cross.

The ultimate purpose of the Bible is salvation, God meeting every requirement to reconcile us to Him in a vassal sezarian treaty with us.

I think you have misunderstood me. I almost entirely agree with you here. The overwhelming majority of the Old Testament is grounded in actual history. There is great parallels and themes through each era and despite the hundreds of years between the writings of these texts, and the various authors used for them - this is a testament to God's workmanship through the authors!

But these are all narratives that demand historical value to be of value. Where we differ in opinion is that you believe this to be true of the opening chapters of Genesis, and I believe it not to be true. A big part of this is the ancient near eastern histories and religions. I believe in this thread, I showed how the creation account of Genesis 1 works well under the view that it uses ancient near eastern cosmogynies to speak a powerful truth of Yahweh over the ANE pantheon (may have been another thread, too many pages to scroll through and look )

The opening chapters of Genesis serve the function of establishing a theological framework for the historical narratives to take place.

Perhaps I can give you an example with something from outside Genesis.

In the majority of ancient near eastern religions, the ruler of the gods (the king, the high god, etc..) was a storm god, similar to zeus. He fought with lightning, and appeared in theophanies as fire, whirlwind, storms, even earth quakes. The storm god (for references to two major ones, see Marduk or Baal-hadad), is challenged by the sea god for rulership over the pantheon and creation. So the storm god fights it off. In about half the accounts he defeats the sea god with an arrow, and the rest are mixed, such as Baal who used dual weilding maces (must have been tier 13 to defeat Yamm).

Now come to Psalm 77. The author is expressing how great Yahweh is. He exclaims his powers and refers to historical events, but watch what happens come verse 15.

15 With your mighty arm you redeemed your people,
the descendants of Jacob and Joseph.
Selah

16 The waters saw you, O God,
the waters saw you and writhed;
the very depths were convulsed.

17 The clouds poured down water,
the skies resounded with thunder;
your arrows flashed back and forth.

18 Your thunder was heard in the whirlwind,
your lightning lit up the world;
the earth trembled and quaked.

19 Your path led through the sea,
your way through the mighty waters,
though your footprints were not seen.

20 You led your people like a flock
by the hand of Moses and Aaron.

to express the exodus in as powerful a way as he can think of, he uses the storm god story to convey Yahweh's power. It would be easy to assume this is simply a reference to the parting of the red sea, but the arrows, the whirlwind, the whole thing screams Marduk! The epic storm, all of it points to Marduk's battle with Tiamat. Yet here the author is attributing these actions to Yahweh, and using them as metaphor, sandwiched between the begininning and the end of the exodus.

Myth not only can be used to express truth, but on occasion it actually is used to express truth in the Bible.

Since we seem to be coming at an impass, for the sake of the thread we should step back and talk again when we encounter each other in another thread in the future. I hope you reply with your thoughts on this post, but unless you have a specific question for me, I probably won't post anymore, and let you have the last word.

 

[juvenissun]

I think this is side stepping the question. Does the prophecy of 3:15 need to be literally true for its symbolic side to also be true?



The Spirit does not give interpretations without reasons. A "personal" interpretation should also be tested in the corporate church.

What if Adam (literal) "represents" man (coincidently, the exact meaning of his name)? If the author wanted to express the state of mankind, would this not accomplish that purpose? The literal historic value of the account is then irrelevant. But the account becomes history for all people. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

It is the same situation:

The serpent is a snake; Adam is a man: both are literally true.
Serpent represents satan; Adam represents mankind: Both are interpretations and could be disagreed upon.

So, Gen3:15 is literally true, and it could be interpreted in theology.

I think I do not have to explain my answer to the OP anymore.

 

[juvenissun]

If there is more than one way to describe it literally then how can anyone say they are interpreting it literally? You're grasping at straws. As a former YEC I can assure you that accepting the creation account as an argument against its contemporaries will help your relationship with God grow. Why are you fighting it?

Pick up one way. And it would be literally true.

It is not as easy as it sounds. For example, how would one feel if "heel" in the verse is replaced by toe or leg?

 

[Hentenza]

Verse 2.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

So I take it that your issue here is with the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters? I don't think you can deny that the earth was without form and void at some point.

This is a result of looking at the Ancient Near Eastern creation accounts that the Bible is speaking against. Genesis 1 is written as an historical account, but is not historical in its function. Its function is to convey a message about Yahweh and compare him to the Ancient Near Eastern gods to establish a powerful identity of the one who will make His covenant with Abraham.

Its truth claims are independant of the historical value of the text, unlike a story such as Abram which must be true for its theological claims to have value.

How God made the world in Genesis 1 is not the point. Its the contrast between Yahweh and Baal, Marduk, El, Melqart, etc. etc.

Its not that things are symbolic in the sense that Augustine saw the waters being separated as God separating physical and spiritual things. Everything in the story is literal in the understanding of the world that the author would have had in his ancient world view. But that does not mean it happened this way. It could not have happened this way. It isn't so much a question of whether or not God was powerful enough to do it this way, or as simple as denying it because it defies the laws of nature - if we believe God made nature and stands outside it, of course he can defy whatever laws he wants during creation or any other time.

But I deny its historical truth because a) it is not a description of the world that is, but the world as the ancient world saw it, and b) that there is two separate accounts of creation, one in Genesis 1, and one in Genesis 2. They both have man, plants, and animals being created in different orders. This is not a matter of defying the laws of nature, but rather contradictory to each other, and for both to claim to be accurate is not possible.

Its not a question of literal or allegorical, its a question of function. As history, Genesis 1 does not serve its function.

Mmmm....so you are assigning intent from verse 2? Why don't we concentrate on what the text says instead of what you think it says?

 

[Papias]

Hentenza wrote:

So I take it that your issue here is with the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters? I don't think you can deny that the earth was without form and void at some point.

The earth was never covered completely with water, as in Waterworld. The earth aggregated from rubble in the disk that would form the solar system, and due to the gravitational energy of this, was initially molten rock/metal. The metal sank to the center because it was more dense, and after the rock cooled, the earth was dry rock, with all water vaporized into the atmosphere, and with early geologic processes making some areas higher than other (ocean basins). As the earth cooled further, the water condensed out, raining for thousands of years to fill the oceans. The actual progression of events was the opposite of what is in Genesis. (Genesis starts with all water, and forms areas of dry land in the water, the actual history starts with all dry land, and forms areas of water on the dry land.)

rcorlew wrote:

God does not use metaphors to describe the spiritual, He uses nature and history as clear indicators to be clearly understood so as no one would have an excuse. The Old Testament is God using actual events to foreshadow the redemption to come.

When God walked the earth as Jesus, he used metaphors and parables all the time to describe the spiritual. Should we not expect this same God to act similarly from the start? To assert otherwise sounds like Marcionism - separating the OT God from Jesus by claiming different behavior.

"so as no one would have an excuse" sounds like you are saying God uses entrapment to try to force people to be cast into Hell, as if that's what God wants to see. Voltaire's admonition comes to mind: "A cruel God makes a cruel man."

So you are saying that a loving, kind God made history start with an unnatural creation, and then had a talking snake trick a rib-woman into eating magical fruit, which would make him mad at us for something our distant ancestor did, then arranged all archeological, paleontological, and scientific evidence from dozens of scientific fields tell a different story, so that we would have no excuse for using our minds, and thus God would get to condemn us to eternal, writhing torture under his loving, watchful eye?

And when told that story, we wonder why thinking people are leaving Christianity in droves?

Papias

 

[Siyha]

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

So I take it that your issue here is with the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters? I don't think you can deny that the earth was without form and void at some point.

No, I don't take issue with that. You seem to miss my point. I have posted a lot of material in this thread in my discussion with rcorlew. Perhaps you should read threads before posting in them.

Mmmm....so you are assigning intent from verse 2? Why don't we concentrate on what the text says instead of what you think it says?

 

[gluadys]

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

So I take it that your issue here is with the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters? I don't think you can deny that the earth was without form and void at some point.

Mmmm....so you are assigning intent from verse 2? Why don't we concentrate on what the text says instead of what you think it says?

Let's begin with what the text says.

The English translation "the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters" is only one way to translate a Hebrew image that is very rich. 'ruach' can mean 'spirit'. It can also mean 'breath' or 'wind'. (One English version translates it as "a wind from God moved over the waters". Another possible translation is "God breathed over the face of the waters" (though I have never seen it used.

I point this out not to pick over the best English rendering, but to point out that to the original hearers, no distinction is made between "spirit" "breath" and "wind", so we need to keep that in mind when we exegete the passage.

Now look at what we have in conjunction here: Spirit/breath/wind and waters/formlessness/emptiness.

Where else do we find this combination in ANE culture? What bells would it ring for anyone in that culture hearing this story for the first time?

We find the same combination in the Enuma Elish (Marduk killed Tiamat--the sea monster representative of the primordial waters-- with a strong wind) , in the story of Baal's conquest of chaos and other similar cosmogonies of the time.

Just so we find the Spirit/breath/wind of God hovering over/ moving across/ blowing over the primordial waters and transforming the chaos of formlessness and emptiness into a cosmos that is structurally ordered and richly inhabited.

For the original audience, this verse situates the creation account of Genesis 1 in the same genre as the pagan cosmogonies they were familiar with, and at the same time challenges those polytheistic cosmogonies with its theology of monotheism in which one God is in absolute control and does not need to wrestle for superiority.

 

[Hentenza]

Hentenza wrote:



The earth was never covered completely with water, as in Waterworld. The earth aggregated from rubble in the disk that would form the solar system, and due to the gravitational energy of this, was initially molten rock/metal. The metal sank to the center because it was more dense, and after the rock cooled, the earth was dry rock, with all water vaporized into the atmosphere, and with early geologic processes making some areas higher than other (ocean basins). As the earth cooled further, the water condensed out, raining for thousands of years to fill the oceans. The actual progression of events was the opposite of what is in Genesis. (Genesis starts with all water, and forms areas of dry land in the water, the actual history starts with all dry land, and forms areas of water on the dry land.)

Verse 2 does not say that the earth was fully covered in water but that the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. There is no time given from verse 1 to verse 2 so Genesis does not teach against the progression of events. One would have to read that into the text.

Second, there are many theories as to how the earth was formed. Tis the nature of forensic sciences.

 

[Siyha]

So you are saying that a loving, kind God made history start with an unnatural creation, and then had a talking snake trick a rib-woman into eating magical fruit, which would make him mad at us for something our distant ancestor did, then arranged all archeological, paleontological, and scientific evidence from dozens of scientific fields tell a different story, so that we would have no excuse for using our minds, and thus God would get to condemn us to eternal, writhing torture under his loving, watchful eye?

And when told that story, we wonder why thinking people are leaving Christianity in droves?

Papias

Rib woman... tee hee!
Oh I like this game!

Christians believe that Jesus commanded them to be cannibals and eat his zombie flesh so they could live forever.

 

[Hentenza]

No, I don't take issue with that. You seem to miss my point. I have posted a lot of material in this thread in my discussion with rcorlew. Perhaps you should read threads before posting in them.

Yes, I do confess that I have not read the entire thread. Time is a bit tight for me. Perhaps you could point to your post that addresses my line of argument. Thanks.

 

[Siyha]

Verse 2 does not say that the earth was fully covered in water but that the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. There is no time given from verse 1 to verse 2 so Genesis does not teach against the progression of events. One would have to read that into the text.

Second, there are many theories as to how the earth was formed. Tis the nature of forensic sciences.

verse 2 is an a-typical description of the ancient near eastern original state of the world. The formless and void earth is the state the ancient near eastern gods began creating from. If you look at the ancient world philosophies, you will see that creation ex nihlo doesn't exist outside judaism. Everything has existed for all time, but in a chaotic void - without order and purpose. The gods would then take that chaotic void and order it, name it, and give it function. Water is synonymous with chaos in the ancient world, which is why in this formless void, water is present. The chaotic void IS water. Whats great about the Hebrew account of creation is that Yahweh "one ups" the ANE gods by CREATING the formless void that the other gods only started with.

Perhaps we should be focusing on what the text says, rather than what you think it says.

 

[Hentenza]

Let's begin with what the text says.

The English translation "the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters" is only one way to translate a Hebrew image that is very rich. 'ruach' can mean 'spirit'. It can also mean 'breath' or 'wind'. (One English version translates it as "a wind from God moved over the waters". Another possible translation is "God breathed over the face of the waters" (though I have never seen it used.

I point this out not to pick over the best English rendering, but to point out that to the original hearers, no distinction is made between "spirit" "breath" and "wind", so we need to keep that in mind when we exegete the passage.

The key portion is not that it was the Spirit, breath, or wind but of the Spirit, breath, or wind of God (אֱלֹהִ֔י&#1501 hovering over the waters. It doesn't change the exegesis of the passage unless you remove אֱלֹהִ֔ים.

 

[Hentenza]

verse 2 is an a-typical description of the ancient near eastern original state of the world. The formless and void earth is the state the ancient near eastern gods began creating from. If you look at the ancient world philosophies, you will see that creation ex nihlo doesn't exist outside judaism. Everything has existed for all time, but in a chaotic void - without order and purpose. The gods would then take that chaotic void and order it, name it, and give it function. Water is synonymous with chaos in the ancient world, which is why in this formless void, water is present. The chaotic void IS water. Whats great about the Hebrew account of creation is that Yahweh "one ups" the ANE gods by CREATING the formless void that the other gods only started with.

Perhaps we should be focusing on what the text says, rather than what you think it says.

If that is the case then the text speaks nothing about near eastern gods or philosophies.

 

[philadiddle]

If that is the case then the text speaks nothing about near eastern gods or philosophies.

But that is what the immediate audience would have been familiar with so it is directly speaking to those things.

 

[Papias]

Hentenza wrote:

Verse 2 does not say that the earth was fully covered in water but that the Spirit of God hovered over the waters.

Verse 2 is the intial state, on day 1. On day 3, in verse 9-11, the story makes a big show of making the new fangled "dry land". So yes, at verse 2 there was no dry land, just as there were no humans. Do you think that at verse 2 there were humans because verse 2 does not say that there were not humans yet?

There is no time given from verse 1 to verse 2 so Genesis does not teach against the progression of events. One would have to read that into the text.

Hold on. So you are saying that you read stories in your Bible as non-sequential, unless the text says one verse is before another? You feel fine just taking all the verses in the Bible that don't say they are before or after other events and just picking and choosing where you'd like them? I'm sorry, but that sounds like Mad Libs or some similar game we'd do as kids to make funny stories. There are places all through whichever Bible you choose (your shorter Bible or my longer Bible) where that approach would play havoc with making any sense of the Bible. Even there in Genesis, so Gen 26:12 may be after Gen 26:19, and so on, scrambling much of the Bible as you see fit? Really?

Second, there are many theories as to how the earth was formed. Tis the nature of forensic sciences.

Come on - there is a consensus among geologists about how the earth formed, it's as controversial as how the sun is powered. It's 3rd grade science. Here is a reference, but one isn't really needed:

The Earth's early evolution -- Bowring and Housh 269 (5230): 1535 -- Science

Christians saying things like "there are many theories about how the earth was formed" as if there are many that significantly disagree with each other that are seriously being considered by scientists makes Christianity look ignorant and out of date. I don't think we want to do that.

Papias

 

[AnswersInHovind]

The Earth's early evolution -- Bowring and Housh 269 (5230): 1535 -- Science

TE's always acuse YEC's for being ignorant because YEC's use a variety of sciences to disprove evolution, whereas the TE's claim evolution is strictly biology, so when we talk about geology or astronomy we are wasting our breath.

Yet here we have the "evolution" of the earth.

Interesting....

 

[Dark_Lite]

TE's always acuse YEC's for being ignorant because YEC's use a variety of sciences to disprove evolution, whereas the TE's claim evolution is strictly biology, so when we talk about geology or astronomy we are wasting our breath.

Yet here we have the "evolution" of the earth.

Interesting....

No, what YECs usually do is make an inane claim in an attempt to disprove something like stellar evolution, and then assume that somehow magically disproves or even has anything to do with biological evolution. Papias is citing a source about the formation of the earth, not anything to do with biological evolution. Do not make the mistake of assuming that "the evolution of the earth" refers to biological evolution. It's all about context. Just because the word evolution is used does not mean it's got anything to do with biological evolution. In the most general sense, evolution just means change. Stellar evolution: How a star changes over its lifetime, or how stars in the universe came to be. Evolution of the earth: How the earth has changed since its formation 4.5 billion years ago.

 

[AnswersInHovind]

No, what YECs usually do is make an inane claim in an attempt to disprove something like stellar evolution, and then assume that somehow magically disproves or even has anything to do with biological evolution. Papias is citing a source about the formation of the earth, not anything to do with biological evolution. Do not make the mistake of assuming that "the evolution of the earth" refers to biological evolution. It's all about context. Just because the word evolution is used does not mean it's got anything to do with biological evolution. In the most general sense, evolution just means change. Stellar evolution: How a star changes over its lifetime, or how stars in the universe came to be. Evolution of the earth: How the earth has changed since its formation 4.5 billion years ago.

I think thats the point. All the "evolutionary" theories in each science depend on each other for validity. If you can show a lack of geological evolution, there is no time for biological evolution to happen. There is no "evolution" process in the scriptures. There is an "as is" creation. BAM! God made it.... just like that. Sure things have changed since then, but not in the "evolving" sense. It wasn't that they were progressing to a new state of existence like evolution wants everything to do every million years.

 

[Papias]

AnsersinJHovind wrote:

OK, so let me get this straight - you are saying that YEC's dispute any use of the word "evolution" in any way? Let's look at the definition:

<H2 class=me>ev·o·lu·tion

&#8194; &#8194;/&#716;&#603;v

&#601;&#712;lu

&#643;&#601;n or, especially Brit., &#716;i

v&#601;-/ Show Spelled[ev-uh-loo-shuh

n or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Show IPA </H2>&#8211;noun 1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.

2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.

3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.

4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.

Biological Evolution is #3, but here you are disputing that anything changes over time in any scientific field? Wow.



What TE's object to is when YEC's dispute other cases of things changing over time in other scientific fields, and think that somehow because the same word (evolution) is used, that they can say this is evidence against biological evolution.

AIH wrote:

All the "evolutionary" theories in each science depend on each other for validity. If you can show a lack of geological evolution, there is no time for biological evolution to happen.

OK, maybe we are onto a reason why YEC's dispute so many other scientific fields here. It's all an attempt to confirm a literal reading of their chosen Bible, which, when the metaphorical sections are taken literally, doesn't match the real world.

However, geological changes and the age of the earth are very well established, again based on multiple lines of evidence, by geologists who were Christians, and supported by geologists who are Christians today. Same for astronomy, physics, and so many other sciences that YEC's attack. Because they are each established by multiple internal lines of evidence, they don't depend on each other. That's why these attacks are so futile, and why they only serve to destroy Christianity by making Christianity look deluded.

I think AIH's last point shows a fundamental misunderstanding about science - that all the fields depend on each other and hence are all holding each other up by the bootstraps, and none are based on reality. If that were the case, then science would be just a house of cards, where realizing that even one is false would result in them all coming down. In fact, the opposite is true - each is established by many, many independent supports from the evidence from reality, and an error in one would not affect the others. Now that I see that, it makes sense to see why YEC's would think their actions may actually help, when in fact they are making more atheists than Dawkins could ever dream of reaching himself.

Papias

 

[AnswersInHovind]

AnsersinJHovind wrote:







Biological Evolution is #3, but here you are disputing that anything changes over time in any scientific field? Wow.



What TE's object to is when YEC's dispute other cases of things changing over time in other scientific fields, and think that somehow because the same word (evolution) is used, that they can say this is evidence against biological evolution.

AIH wrote:


OK, maybe we are onto a reason why YEC's dispute so many other scientific fields here. It's all an attempt to confirm a literal reading of their chosen Bible, which, when the metaphorical sections are taken literally, doesn't match the real world.

However, geological changes and the age of the earth are very well established, again based on multiple lines of evidence, by geologists who were Christians, and supported by geologists who are Christians today. Same for astronomy, physics, and so many other sciences that YEC's attack. Because they are each established by multiple internal lines of evidence, they don't depend on each other. That's why these attacks are so futile, and why they only serve to destroy Christianity by making Christianity look deluded.

I think AIH's last point shows a fundamental misunderstanding about science - that all the fields depend on each other and hence are all holding each other up by the bootstraps, and none are based on reality. If that were the case, then science would be just a house of cards, where realizing that even one is false would result in them all coming down. In fact, the opposite is true - each is established by many, many independent supports from the evidence from reality, and an error in one would not affect the others. Now that I see that, it makes sense to see why YEC's would think their actions may actually help, when in fact they are making more atheists than Dawkins could ever dream of reaching himself.

Papias

I'm not saying science is a house of cards, but the comparison is not far off. All fields of academics continue to build off of past work. Philosophy, psychiatry, even theology and scholastics. Science is no exception. The current models are based on systems of thinking that have been around for a while. What I think creationism is trying to show is that the science itself isn't bad, but the early foundations its built on are false, and without those foundations, things like evolution become pure speculation.