75 replies to this topic

[Jor-el]

HuttonEtAl, on 20 March 2012 - 09:16 PM, said:

How do you figure?

Well, we find a number of ancient views, some of them follow the concept of literal 24 hour days, others do not.

The actual text is sufficiently loose in that a day could be seen as an unspecified period of time, we have a number of instances in the bible where days do not refer to a specific 24 hour day but a time period that in some views could last as much as a actual 1000 years.

Given that the text is written in a semi poetic style in the hebrew, it also stands to reason that some of this text van be seen as a literay metaphor.

[RavenHawk]

Paranoid Android, on 21 March 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

Rather than specifically address each of your points, I'm going to post why I believe in Old Earth Creationism (to be exact, I believe in Theistic Evolution - the view that evolution works as scientists explain, but it is God who is guiding the process to create his special creation, humanity).  So with that said, I will suggest my reasons as to why I think Creation and the rest of Genesis 1-11 should not be viewed as an historical and scientific account of how the world came to be.

You were looking for the full text the last time we were on a similar subject.  I see you found it :-)  I like it very much.  I must admit I like your insight as well as mine.  I think they are both very logical and clear analysis into the meaning of Genesis 1-11.  Thank you for posting it.

[RavenHawk]

Jor-el, on 21 March 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

Well, we find a number of ancient views, some of them follow the concept of literal 24 hour days, others do not.

The actual text is sufficiently loose in that a day could be seen as an unspecified period of time, we have a number of instances in the bible where days do not refer to a specific 24 hour day but a time period that in some views could last as much as a actual 1000 years.

Given that the text is written in a semi poetic style in the hebrew, it also stands to reason that some of this text van be seen as a literay metaphor.

The final court scene in “Inherit the Wind” is a brilliant presentation and explanation of the discrepancy in measurement of time and hence the meaning of “night & day”.  

[Jor-el]

1689 Reformed_Baptist, on 21 March 2012 - 01:45 AM, said:

Thanks for your interesting thoughts!

If that's what you believe, it still does not affect what the text actually means, though I think we can hardly call that a fact. Does Genesis 1-11 of its own merit teach that the earth is billions of years old? I would say no, and many old earth creationists would even agree with me. Biology Professor Pattle Pun of Wheaton College said, "It is apparent that the most straightforward understanding of Genesis, without regard to the hermeneutical considerations suggested by science, is that God created the heavens and the earth in six solar days, that man was created on the sixth day, and that death and chaos entered the world after the fall of Adam and Eve, and that all fossils were the result of the catastrophic deluge that spared on Noah's family and the animals therewith" (emphasis added, source: Old-Earth Creationism on Trial by Tim Chaffey and Jason Lisle).

In other words, Pun admitted that the plain, or literal [Not hard-literal that reads poetry as if it is literal, but literal that establishes the meaning of the text from the text itself], meaning of Genesis does not teach millions of years. It teaches exactly what I put forth in my OP. You have to insert those modern scientific ideas into the text because they are not there. This is called eisegesis and it is bad hermeneutics. It makes the Bible a piece of wet clay that we can mold into whatever we want to. Instead, we need to let Scripture speak for itself and not impose our own ideas onto it.

Well, that would depend on your translation of the text. One item that should be considered by those who constantly try to put forth the view that these are literal events that happened in a week, should read carefully on how the actual hebrew text is translated.

What happens to that view when suddenly the text you assume to be correct can actually be written in a different form?

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Getting back to the 3rd party witness I 1st mentioned, this witness then goes on to describe this extinction event. Verse 2 offers us the clue that we need to understand the rest of the passage, in that they fit perfectly into the sequence of events that would occur, if the earth had to recover from such a catastrophe.

Now the earth was formless and empty

This is a direct reference to the earth as we find it at this time formles and empty, but that unfortunately this is incorrectly interpreted.

There are thre keywords that need to be analyzed in this section, these are

WAS FORMLESS EMPTY

The verb was in the Hebrew is "hayah" and is a form of the verb "to be". Unlike English where different words are used in exclusivity according to time, the hebrew can render the same word in different times depending on the context.

Accordingly, Genesis 1:3 which we'll get to shortly states:

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.

Both terms "be" and "was" are" translated from the word "hayah". In the same vein in Genesis 1:29 we have an instance of the same verb form in the Future:

They will be yours for food.

We have the same situation with the past tense where היה "hayah" can be translated "Became"...

Genesis 47:20

So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, for every Egyptian sold his field, because the famine was severe upon them. Thus the land became Pharaoh's.

Taking this into consideration, the verse can thus be translated:

Now the earth became...

Formless and empty can be taken together as a group. The hebrew rendering of "Formless and Empty" is "tohu wa bohu"

From the outset we can say unequivocally that both words, whether occurring together or singly, are used throughout Scripture in connection with something under God's judgment. Tohu is used of something which has been laid waste (Isaiah 24:10; 34:11; Jeremiah 4:23) or has become desert (Deuteronomy 32:10) or of anything which is the object of false "worship" and therefore displeasing to God, as in Isaiah 41:29, etc. With the Hebrew preposition (lamedh) it becomes an adverb, (Isaiah 49:4) and means "wastefully" or "in vain."

Let us take Jeremiah 4:23 into consideration:

Jeremiah 4:19-26

My soul, my soul! I am in anguish! Oh, my heart!
My heart is pounding in me;
I cannot be silent,
Because you have heard, O my soul,
The sound of the trumpet,
The alarm of war.

Disaster on disaster is proclaimed,
For the whole land is devastated;
Suddenly my tents are devastated,
My curtains in an instant.

How long must I see the standard
And hear the sound of the trumpet?

For My people are foolish,
They know Me not;
They are stupid children
And have no understanding
They are shrewd to do evil,
But to do good they do not know."

looked on the earth, and behold, it was formless and void;
And to the heavens, and they had no light.

I looked on the mountains, and behold, they were quaking,
And all the hills moved to and fro.

I looked, and behold, there was no man,
And all the birds of the heavens had fled.

I looked, and behold, the fruitful land was a wilderness,
And all its cities were pulled down
Before the LORD, before His fierce anger.

Notice the context of the passage, it is one of Judgement and Destruction, In this particular case a judgement and destruction on Judah. The Kingdom of Judah was conquered in 586 BCE by the Babylonian Empire under Nebuzar-adan, captain of Nebuchadnezzar's body-guard.(2 Kings 25:8-21). This event coincided with the destruction of the First Temple of Jerusalem and with the Babylonian Captivity.

Synonyms, translators commonly use for "Tohu" are:

formlessness, confusion, unreality, emptiness, nothingness, empty space, that which is empty or unreal (of idols), wasteland, wilderness, chaos and vanity

For "Bohu", the synonyms are:

emptiness, void and waste

Thus we can put verse 2 into the following form:

Now the earth became waste and empty or a devestated ruin.

This coincides perfectly with the idea that an extinction event took place. An event that literally wiped the earth clean of life. The idea of the earth being reconstructed is not new by any standard. Revelation says much of the same thing regarding the end of the age where the Earth is reformed or restored, initiating a new and eternal era.

You are probably shaking your head, but go see for yourself, the text quite clearly allows this translation.

Quote

So why does the author of Genesis use the word "beget" which signifies a direct father-son relationship if that is not what he was trying to say? Remember, we are not at this point dealing with the validity of the text, only the meaning.  But if you do believe these supposed gaps are true, can you tell me, do they add enough years to the Bible to support the idea that it teaches the earth is not thousands but billions of years old?

1st it is well known in biblical study, that there are gaps in the geneologies, these are purposful, they exist because when the geneologies were structured, they were done so with a purpose.

I can give you a few items to think about on this issue.

1. Matthew 1:8 tells us that Joram fathered Uzziah. However, in 1Chronicles 3:11-12 we find that Joram fathered Ahaziah, who fathered Joash, who fathered Amaziah, who begot Uzziah who was also called Azariah. To see that Uzziah was also called Azariah, compare 2Kings 14:21-22 with 2Chronicles 26:1-2.

Matthew knew most of his readers would know Joram was the great, great grandfather of Uzziah.

Matthew 1:11 says that Josiah was Jeconiah's father. However, 1Chronicles 3:15-16 tells us that Josiah fathered Jehoiakim, who begot Jeconiah. Matthew's original Jewish readers understood that Jeconiah was descended from Josiah.

Why did Matthew leave these various ancestors out of his record?

Matthew wanted a genealogy record that was symmetrical. He wanted it divided into 3 groups with 14 generations in each group. So following an understood and accepted custom Matthew left out various ancestors of Jesus as he saw fit.

In Genesis 46:18 we find that Zilpah bore 16 persons to Jacob. How many babies did Zilpah herself physically give birth to?

Just two, Gad and Asher. Genesis 30:9-13. However, Zilpah bore to Jacob: sixteen descendants. Genesis 46:16-18.

2. There are differences in the geneologies when we compare the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, Two textual traditions, two differing geneologies

See: Genealogies of Genesis

Quote

But the question is, does the Bible teach that it was a worldwide flood or not? I've given my answer, what's yours?

Well, if you have time to burn, here is a direct response to this issue that I posted on my Blog some time ago. Since it is quite long, I won't reproduce it here..

See: The Great Flood

Quote

We have lots of literary evidence. Genealogies in themselves are an indication that what we are reading is actually history. The context indicates that yom meant a literal 24 hour day. It's not loose at all. If I said, "Back in my grandfather's day, it took ten days to drive across America during the day," it's very easy to understand what I mean each time I use the word "day." It's no different in Genesis and it's certainly not less "loose" or open for interpretation. What I meant is the meaning and every other view is wrong.

Funny, how you just used a perfect example of my argument in your response...

Back in my grandfather's day... So how long ago was that exactly, was it a literal 24 hour day?

The same text can be read in different ways, there is not sufficient literary evidence to say that it was a literal 24 hour day, yes it can be interpreted that way, but it is not the only way that it can be interpreted. Being dogmatic about this issue is like counting soap bubbles. Both sides can have the cake and eat it too. If you don't agree then so be it.

But here is an interesting video, for you to see, if you have the time...

The speaker is a phd scholar in ancient Semitic Languages, thus he knows what he is speaking about.

Quote

Is there any good reason to assume this? If not, it is arbitrary. The author of Genesis does not indicate that. Genesis says, "In the beginning, God created..." Thus there is no good reason to assume it's talking about restoration. The author is intending to give us the beginning.

And how do you know that the very 1st verse is directly connected to the rest of the text?

Again, there is nothing to suggest that it should be connected.

The entire 1st verse can stand alone without further explanation.

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

One can almost sense the distinction between the 1st verse and what comes afterward.

[Jor-el]

RavenHawk, on 21 March 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

The final court scene in “Inherit the Wind” is a brilliant presentation and explanation of the discrepancy in measurement of time and hence the meaning of “night & day”.  

Very nice, and it goes right to the heart of the matter. So yes it could have been a literal 24 hour day, or it could have been much longer. the text is sufficiently free to accept either view.

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

This may have been said already but I read the op and it says made in a 24 hour day well OK six of them. Where does it say 24 hours. To get to my point a 24 hour day is based on the rotation of earth around the sun. Which didn't exist until after it was created. Would it not make more sense that everything was created in six of gods days measured by whatever he measures days by? Making it possible that millions or billions of earth days could fit into one of his days?
This could lead into evolution being a part of his creation in order to reach the result of man. But that's off topic and I wont go any further than that. So how did we come up with 24 hours?

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

Looking on in the topic I do see that this has been broached. Cheers all

[Copen]

1689 Reformed_Baptist, on 20 March 2012 - 02:51 PM, said:

Hello all,

This topic is meant to be directed at those who claim to be Christians or to believe the Bible, yet do not believe that Genesis 1-11 is an historical account. Others are welcome to comment if they stay on this topic. This is not meant to be a discussion of whether or not Genesis 1-11 is true or false, rather it is a discussion over what the original author actually intended to say when he wrote it. Thus it is a discussion of biblical hermeneutics or the principles of interpretation we use to understand Scripture.

I obviously take the stance that Genesis chapters 1-11 are written in a historical grammatical format. Thus, the original author is setting forth what he says as true history. According to Genesis 1-11 the earth was literally created in 6, 24 hour days (with God resting on the 7th); the earth is about 6,000 years old according to the genealogies;

Genesis 1 - 11 is indeed a God breathed account of the beginnings. Problem is Christians read it like a regular book with a beginning, an apex, and an ending. In the present teachings there are so many contradictions that are ignored or explained so weakly that it defies logic. Plus, Genesis can not be fully understood without going further into the Bible and using information given there and applying it back to Genesis 1 -11 much like Shem and Japheth who put a garment, (Strong's Concordance defines that a "mantle." A mantle in the Bible is symbolic of the Word), on their shoulders and walked backwards to cover their father. If you do not apply verses further in the Bible to the beginnings you can never eliminate what seems to be numerous contradictions. There are many naked truths lying there for us to cover; but like Ham it is being made a mockery by Christians.

Example: You said, "According to Genesis 1-11 the earth was literally created in 6, 24 hour days (with God resting on the 7th); the earth is about 6,000 years old according to the genealogies;"

The Bible says the heaven and earth were created in the beginning. We don't know when the beginning was; but it was probably not long before God moved upon the face of the waters and saw that it had become confusion and emptiness and darkness was upon the face of the deep waters. When God does something He doesn't have steps of improvement. First step - confusion, second step completion. The first six days everything was spoken into existence. BOOM! Done from his God breathed mouth. The six days of creation was sometime after God created the heaven and earth, and had placed Lucifer for a covering over the earth, and saw that Lucifer (whom the Bible says is the author of confusion) had changed heaven and earth into confusion, emptiness and darkness.

There are also KEYS to securing truths in scripture. Hebrews says with God everything is twice for a strong consolation. Genesis 1-11 is full of twos of everything. God created out of confusion Day One and stepped back like an artist looking at his work and said, "Light is good." Had nothing to do with sinlessness. Day Two is the only day God say nothing good. He put a reservoir of water above the 2nd heaven for He knew the day was coming when He would use it in a deluge. But He made up for it by creating two things good on Day Six. Not sinless but good for His purposes.

Therefore, God started a six day creation by speaking everything into being. Later, on Day Eight God created Adam out of the dust of the ground with His hand like a potter with clay. Eve was the first clone. She didn't come from a seed or an egg. She came from Adams flesh and bone. Blood is manufactured in the bone. So they had the exact same DNA. No variation. Whatever his skin DNA was, hers was the exact same. Two of the same produce the same. You can't get different races from two of the same. But if Day Six was of Gentiles ("Gen" means beginning ---" tiles" is baked clay) then there is the variation and different races. Two very black couples and two very white couples. Adam is the first Jew. Not called that but Jesus was a Jew and His genealogy goes all the way back to Adam, the first Man. That is why Jesus was called the Son of Man.  You have to look at the way words are used in the Bible. They have deeper means than what the dictionary can give. Example "knew." In the Bible it means marital intimacy. It is never used in the Bible when it is not marital. Man most of the time means Jew, men most of the time means Gentiles. By its frequent use in those ways it gives deeper meaning.

Son of Man could not mean God in flesh. There are sons of man mentioned elsewhere in the Bible. In Job and Psalms. But Jesus is the last use of that term.

Why did I say there were two couples of very black skinned people and two very white couples?  Because even scientific generated grafts of how ABC and abc genetic codes can produce variations, the bottom line is you can only produce a RACE who are the same very black skin from two couples who are both very black. Only introduction of whiter genes makes a difference.

Now, going further into the Bible and using the verse, spoken by Adam, 'You must leave father and mother' to get a wife; and other scriptures that teach God is 'the same yesterday, today and tomorrow'; and additional scripture that teaches incest is forbidden, the conclusion which eliminates confusion is this:

"When men (Gentiles) began to multiply on the face of the earth and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God (Jewish sons of Adam) saw the daughters of men (Gentiles) that they were fair and they took them wives of all whom they chose."

The name Eve is actually Eva which is the prefix of the word evangelize. In Strong's Concordance shows them together.
Adam named her Eva because she is the mother of all living. She is the mother of all spiritually alive. The word "living" as used concerning the flood narrative means "spiritually alive". "Living creatures" was spiritually alive humans. Not all human flesh and not animals. Two black couples and two white couples were those with the breath of life (spiritual life) and "every living thing" were humans. (I HAVE TO ADMIT. YOU WILL HAVE TO REFER TO THE APOCRYPHA'S TRANSLATION IN CLEAR THAT DIFFERENCE UP.) The only times the word "flesh" is used in the Bible to mean animal---- is when it is on the alter as substitute flesh for spiritually alive humans.

Animals went into the ark in two categories, clean and unclean. Clean went in six females and one male. Unclean went in one female and one male. Spiritually alive humans went in two and two. Two black females and two black males and same for white humans. Noah gathered food on the hoof for them. But he didn't gather food for a whole years supply for all the animals. He couldn't have fed spiders, and lions, and birds, and etc. for a whole year. That's how long they were on that boat.

This is such a lengthy subject, it would take a book to clear up the many contradictions being taught today about Genesis 1-11. As people tend to skim over lengthy computer monitor text, this is long already and only a fraction has been covered.
God bless you in your dialogue on Genesis 1-11.

Edited by Copen, 22 March 2012 - 03:09 AM.

[Paranoid Android]

RavenHawk, on 21 March 2012 - 09:05 PM, said:

You were looking for the full text the last time we were on a similar subject.  I see you found it :-)  I like it very much.  I must admit I like your insight as well as mine.  I think they are both very logical and clear analysis into the meaning of Genesis 1-11.  Thank you for posting it.

Glad you found it helpful.  For me, it is the most logical conclusion.  I know Young-Earth Creationists will disagree, but to me I don't think it is a massive deal.  Whether God created the world in literally six days, or whether it incorporates poetic devices and oral tradition, the theological point remains identical - God created the earth, created us to be in relationship with him, and we broke that relationship through sin.  At the core this is the exact same theological point/s that all Christians should get from creation and Eden and the Fall, regardless of their specific views of the text.

That is my view of it, at least.

Edited by Paranoid Android, 22 March 2012 - 05:05 AM.

[RavenHawk]

Jor-el, on 21 March 2012 - 10:04 PM, said:

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

Getting back to the 3rd party witness I 1st mentioned, this witness then goes on to describe this extinction event.

Just a quick question.  Wouldn’t the formation of Earth from the dark cloud disk circulating around a newly formed sun also fit that description?  It wouldn’t necessarily be an ELE?  The Earth became formless and empty from the cloud.

[1689 Reformed_Baptist]

Englishgent, on 21 March 2012 - 02:51 AM, said:

1.  I fail to understand how anyone can claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old with all the scientific evidence that overwhelmingly states otherwise.

Hello there

First of all, the discussion is not regarding whether you can understand why someone claims something but what the Bible is actually claiming. Secondly, evidence does not actually state anything. This is the fallacy of reification - the fallacy when a person attributes a concrete characteristic to a conceptual abstraction. The classic example of this is "It's not nice to fool mother nature." Nature is a concept and cannot be fooled as if it had a mind. While reification is perfectly acceptable in poetry, it should not be used in logical argumentation because it is ambiguous and can obscure important issues (Source: The Ultimate Proof of Creation by Dr. Jason Lisle).

Quote

2. There is not enough water on this planet to create a global flood and there is no evidence whatsover that a global flood occured. It is more likely that a catastrophic, but localised flood occured from which this stories eminates. There is plenty of evidence for this where water broke through the Bosphurus from the Mediterranean, into the Black Sea. The biblical people would be well aware of this due to it being close to their region.

Again, we are not dealing with whether or not the evidence suggests a global flood. What we are trying to establish is what the biblical author intended to say. If you read Genesis 1-11 without any presuppositions that you want to impose on the text (which is called eisegesis), then you get the idea that he is talking about a global flood. Perhaps the discussion over the evidence for a local flood would be the idea for a new topic, but it is beyond the scope of this one.

Quote

3. Genesis talks about a rainbow being a sign from god. This would have to mean that the laws governing the refraction of light did not occur prior to the alleged global flood, which is not possible. Rainbows have occured since the dawn of time (which was a lot more than 6000 years ago)

I did not bring up the rainbow as evidence for anything but the fact that the Bible teaches there was a global flood. Do you believe the Bible teaches there was a global flood? And if not, why not? Those are the questions we are trying to deal with.

Quote

4. You talk of evidence, yet the only so called evidence you quote comes from the bible. You completely ignore any proven scientific evidence regarding the history of this planet that does not agree with your way of thinking.

I think you might have missed the point of this discussion. It is not to prove the Bible's validity. It is only to establish what the biblical text actually says. In order to do that, you have to use the Bible. If I wanted to prove to you the president or someone was inside my house, the easiest and most irrefutable way to do that would be to take you inside my house and show him to you. My point is - if we want to establish what the Bible means, the most logical way to do this is use what the Bible says.

Quote

5. Please dont tell me this is not ''on topic'' because plainly it is

This is off topic, as I pointed out. I don't mean to be rude, but you are trying to disprove the Bible before we've even established what it means. But I do thank you for your views, I hope you know that mine are meant to be respectful as well

[1689 Reformed_Baptist]

RavenHawk, on 21 March 2012 - 04:28 AM, said:

I beg your pardon?  My whole reply is about interpretation and original meaning of those chapters.  My reply is very on topic.  How can you discuss original meaning if you don’t consider authorship?  Genesis 1 provides a different meaning if the author is Adam rather than Moses.  Adam experienced the events whereas Moses did not.  It’s not that other flood stories are based off the flood story in genesis but all flood stories are based off the original event.  Catch the subtlety?

And off topic, I would love to see what you disagree with.  I think I show that Genesis 1 may not be more detailed but definitely scientifically possible.

This discussion was directed at "those who claim to be Christians or to believe the Bible." The Bible clearly gives Moses as the author of the pentateuch (Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Numbers 33:1–2; Deuteronomy 31:9–11; Joshua 1:8; 8:31–32; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13; Malachi 4:4; Matthew 19:8; John 5:45–47; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5; Mark 12:26). Therefore, this was not meant to be a point of discussion. Even if you disagree with that, however, you can still show me from Genesis 1-11 itself that it is not talking about a literal 24 hour 6 day creation or a global flood if that is what you believe it says.

[1689 Reformed_Baptist]

karmakazi, on 21 March 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

I disagree, the evidence can help us to understand what a text means.

Do you then believe that the meaning of the text changes based on the evidence we have available to us? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are talking about scientific evidence (such as the earth supposedly being much older than 6,000 years)? I agree that evidence can help us understand a text, but a different kind of evidence. If I wanted to prove to you that Plato held the same views as say a modern day conservative or something, what would be the best way for me to do that? It would be to give evidence from Plato's writings themselves. Along with that, comes universal standards of hermeneutics that if I follow, will keep me from misrepresenting him. If you used scientific evidence to try and prove Plato meant something other than what it really appears that he said, then you are not proving what Plato's view actually was. Instead, you are presenting evidence that Plato's view was wrong.

This is the same with establishing what Scripture means. Scientific evidence does not shed more light onto what Scripture means. Scripture speaks for itself just as Plato's writings do. Scientific evidence can either support it or not support it - though this, as I've said, it not the purpose of this discussion. The only way to prove what Scripture means is using Scripture itself.

Quote

You cannot discuss something while taking it absolutely, 100% literally.  Some individual interpretation must come into play because otherwise we'd just be agreeing with each other and having nothing to say.

I'm glad you brought this up, this is a good point. The Bible contains many different literary styles that are not meant to be ignored. For instance, poetry is used a lot in the Psalms, so we do not take everything literalistically (which is an important distinction from literalism). When we read in Psalm 19 that "the heavens declare the glory of God," we do not think they are literally speaking.

I read the Bible in a literal fashion, but this does not mean what many people think it means. To read the Bible literally, is to give reference to the literary context that is established from evidences within that same text and others like it. So when I read the Psalms I understand it is poetry which uses hyperbole, metaphor, anthropomorphism, etc. This is referred to in 2 Corinthians 4:2 as "setting forth the truth plainly."

In other words, I read the Bible in a straightforward manner. By this I can understand that literal history is literal history, poetry is poetry, etc. This is called the historical grammatical method of interpretation. If you wanted to prove my understanding of Genesis 1-11 is incorrect, this is ultimately the method of interpretation you would have to prove wrong.

Genesis 1-11 is in the same literary style as the rest of the book. So if you say the first 11 chapters are allegory or what have you, there's no hermeneutical justification to say the rest of the book is not. It's a wonder to me that the rest of Genesis is not attacked as the first 11 chapters are. Yet all the evidences I've given indicate that Genesis 1-11 is a historical account. Therefore, we can understand or interpret what he says as history.

Quote

So that makes me think you only want to discuss with those who agree with your own interpretation and anyone else is "off topic"

Am I not discussing my view with you right now, though you disagree with my interpretation? The things that are off topic are the things that do not discuss the meaning of Genesis 1-11, since that is meant to be the discussion. It is a narrow topic, but in my opinion that is the best way for a discussion to actually accomplish something.

[RavenHawk]

1689 Reformed_Baptist, on 22 March 2012 - 02:11 PM, said:

This discussion was directed at "those who claim to be Christians or to believe the Bible."

Well, I claim to be Christian.  I am definitely not your typical Christian.  I am more of a maverick.  I am most definitely heretical.  A little bit deist and perhaps gnostic.  I grew up Protestant but I’m really not that and I am definitely not Catholic.  I believe in the Bible but also in the natural world.  Whenever a conflict arises between the two, I look for a logical explanation, knowing that is probably the answer and that one doesn’t violate the other.  I think that the stories in the Bible are true but not meant to be taken literally in everything.  The Bible is a good book in that it gives us guidance on how to live a good life.  But it is a history of why Christ came when he came, what his message is, and what he wants for us.  And personal choice has a lot to do with it.  Since the time of Christ, history hasn’t necessarily been kind or has followed those beliefs but that’s an example when Man drives the bus.  Yet, to some degree we can’t just stop the bus and get off.  Not yet.  So there will still be atrocities committed in the name of GOD yet to come.

Quote

The Bible clearly gives Moses as the author of the pentateuch (Exodus 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Numbers 33:1–2; Deuteronomy 31:9–11; Joshua 1:8; 8:31–32; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13; Malachi 4:4; Matthew 19:8; John 5:45–47; 7:19; Acts 3:22; Romans 10:5; Mark 12:26).

This has already been mentioned in this thread but just because Moses is credited with writing it, doesn’t mean that he did.  It’s like Christopher Columbus is credited for discovering America, but we know that he wasn’t the first.  Back in Moses’ day and really all the way up to today, it’s the leader that gets the credit for any accomplishments.  That’s just the way it is.  It’s usually the leader that creates a conducive environment for those under him to get the job done.  And as I said earlier, the Documentary Hypothesis shows that Moses couldn’t have actually written the Pentateuch.  He probably commissioned scribes from each tribe to collect the stories from their own tribes and then culled them into a canon.

Quote

Therefore, this was not meant to be a point of discussion. Even if you disagree with that,

Well, it has to be the initial point of the discussion.  You can’t discuss the meaning unless you know who the author is.  Knowing the author will give perspective.  I don’t think you need to know exactly who the author is but that his work is distinctive.

Quote

however, you can still show me from Genesis 1-11 itself that it is not talking about a literal 24 hour 6 day creation

I think that between PA and myself, we have done that.  I do think that it was poetic in nature to allow for easy memorization.  The people back then just didn’t have the science to reveal to them the truth so they didn’t care what it meant.  Just knowing that GOD created the universe was all they needed to know then.  Science has acted like a new apple.  It didn’t change the meaning, just the perspective.

Quote

or a global flood if that is what you believe it says.

I can see a global flood or a local flood.  I can see how it could work with both.  I tend to lean toward the local.  But I must wonder if this is our “24 hour day” in that we really don’t care.  Perhaps there is something in science that we do not yet understand.  Maybe in the early Earth, water was caught up in the heavens??  I really don’t think it matters now as if there were any survivors and if it was a local flood, these survivors wouldn’t have even realized that they were survivors since they would have been far from the flood.  But those survivors in time, mingled with the House of Noah and those lines eventually died out.  That’s why we really don’t have any other different creation stories.

[1689 Reformed_Baptist]

Paranoid Android, on 21 March 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

Hi Reformed Baptist,

Rather than specifically address each of your points, I'm going to post why I believe in Old Earth Creationism (to be exact, I believe in Theistic Evolution - the view that evolution works as scientists explain, but it is God who is guiding the process to create his special creation, humanity).  So with that said, I will suggest my reasons as to why I think Creation and the rest of Genesis 1-11 should not be viewed as an historical and scientific account of how the world came to be.

Hey there, that sounds like a lot of fun I appreciate your time and thoughts put into this discussion. For organizations sake, I put your reasons in quotations boxes, but I will bring out things you said to support it within my reply, if that makes sense.

Quote

Reason 1 - poetic structure of creation in Genesis 1

In this reason you state that the 7 days of creation follow Hebraic poetry by the use of parallelism. An example of parallelism in poetry is clearly seen in Psalm 49:1: "Hear this, all you peoples; listen, all who live in this world." The two lines of this couplet say essentially the same thing. This is extremely relevant to the discussion. Parallelism is unquestionably a sign of a poetic structure. So if it is found in Genesis 1, then that would make it poetic. However, I want to make the case that parallelism is incorrectly defined and applied in Genesis 1.

First of all, you overstate the case regarding the similarities between the days. It is correct that the creatures of the sea were made on the fifth day, but the water was not created on the second day; it was already there on the first day (Gen. 1:2). Also, you said "The first three days provide the right conditions in which the actions of the second set of three days can be accomplished, in sequential order." The right living conditions for the sun, moon and stars would be the expanse of the heavens correct? However, that is not created until day 2 so it cannot be parallel to day 4.

Secondly, the days of creation simply do not fit into the mold of Hebrew poetry. The idea of parallelism is to express an idea once, then to mirror or expand upon it in parallel or synonymous language. The hallmark of Hebrew poetry is one idea being conveyed in two consecutive lines (as the example from Psalm 49 above points out). Yet you are making an attempt in the creation days to apply this to general concepts that are separated by several verses. You're proving too much. The following examples would also be nullified as history since, according to this standard, they also could be classified as poetry:

Abraham and his son Isaac both had barren wives (Gen. 15:2, 25:21).

Both eventually had children through God's intervention (Gen. 21:2, 25:24)

Both men lied to authorities regarding their wives (Gen. 20:2, 26:7)

Both men faced famine in the Promised Land (Gen. 12:10, 26:1)

Both men made a covenant with the Philistines (Gen. 21:22-34, 26:26-33).

I doubt you take any of these passages as poetic though. The creation days simply do not fit into the mold of Hebrew poetry.

Quote

Without a sun or moon, evening and mornings do not exist. But they do provide a very good structural basis for poetry - the repetition of the phrase, "And there was evening and there was morning", sets a good touchstone to separate each day of creation – a form of micro-resolution at the end of each day, leading into the next section.

The problem with these statements is that has no justification in Hebrew grammar. "Yom" when used with a number or the word evening or morning always means a literal day based upon Hebrew grammar. Just because the sun did not exist until day 4 does not mean the first 3 days were not literal days (since the context already tells us they are). "Day" can be defined as "The time taken for the Earth to spin once on its axis; by extension, the rotation period of any planet. The rotation of the Earth can be measured relative to the stars (sidereal day) or the sun (solar day)." What is needed is a source of light. Therefore the summary of verse 5c could be a sidereal day of 24 hours. (Source)

I think you attempt to answer this objection when you say, "While it is true that light can come from sources other than the sun, the author’s intentions are clear – day and night are created, evening and morning play prominent roles that do not change even when the sun is created, and light is brought forth." However, I would agree with this. The purpose of night and day and evening of morning did not change when the sun was created - and they have not changed since. As I've already stated, in Hebrew grammar, these phrases unquestionably refer to a 24 hour day. Thus, the clear and plain reading of the text (the literal reading of the text) indicates that these were 24 hour days.

So in order for what you said to actually be the case, you would first of all have to prove Genesis 1 to be the only exception to the rules in Hebrew grammar regarding the word "yom." Also, you would have to prove that the light created on day 1 is not a proper basis for a 24 hour day for the first 3 days.

The next point you bring up is that numbers in Hebrew represent things. I completely agree with this. 6 is the number of man, 7 of perfection and 8 of recreation are a few I can think of off the top of my head. You imply that the numbers being representative of something else in Hebrew poetry and the fact that the creation days end on a number that points us back to God who is perfect after pointing us to man who is imperfect, supports the idea that Genesis 1 is poetry. While I agree that those numbers do represent those things, it does not support the idea that Genesis 1 is poetry.

Instead, I would argue that Scripture makes it perfectly clear that these representations in the numbers in the days of creation (that are valid representations) are further evidence for the young earth interpretation. Exodus 20:8-11 picks up on these representations, but in no way supports that it is poetic. In fact, the creation week gives us the basis for our 7 day week - clearly the days of creation were not meant to be interpreted other than literal days. Not only that, 6 days we are to work because God worked for 6 days during creation. But on the 7th day, the Old Testament commanded the Israelites to keep it as holy unto the Lord because "the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy." Exodus 20 tells us the purpose of the 7th day, so we do not need to speculate about it.

Quote

This account of creation in Genesis 1 shows that the author was not intending to write this as an historical approach to HOW God created the world. It is far too stylised and embedded in Hebrew imagery. The point was to convey that God created mankind – the focus is entirely on God’s actions as the supreme and only God. God spoke, and things happened.

For the reasons given above, I do not think Genesis 1 is poetic at all. There are accounts of creation in the Bible that are poetic however. Psalm 104, Job 38, or Isaiah 40:12–15, for example, are poetic accounts of creation. If you compare them with Genesis 1, it becomes very clear that it is not poetic. "The words and phrases are very different from Genesis, and no one could seriously suggest that the Bible views God as riding on the clouds like a man in a chariot (Psalm 104:3) or stopping the oceans with immense doors (Job 38:8) or weighing the mountains in a gigantic pair of scales (Isaiah 40:12). This language is poetic, and nothing like it is found in the historical Genesis account" (Source).