Does Revelation have to be literal to have meaning?

To an extent yes. The second coming for example. For any of the meaning Revelation gives the second coming to be meaningful, there will actually have to be a real, literal, physical (even historical) second coming.
It’s the same with Genesis. It gives meaning to the event of God creating the lights in the sky (as opposed to other meanings given in EE etc) so there must have been a real, literal, physical event of God creating lights in the sky. God may not necessarily have done it how we’d think if we interpreted Genesis literarily, literalistically or even literally, but he must have done it!

Also, the when of creation isn’t all found in Genesis 1, it’s found mostly in those genealogies. But they don’t have the stylised genre. Are they about the what, how and when of the patriach’s family tree? If not, then what are they for?

I’ve read convincing arguments that the internal structure of Genesis suggests that these early chapters were written by God and Adam. I’d be quite interested to see what Dickson thought about these arguments… anyone know if he’s addressed them before?

It’s the same with Genesis. It gives meaning to the event of God creating the lights in the sky (as opposed to other meanings given in EE etc) so there must have been a real, literal, physical event of God creating lights in the sky. God may not necessarily have done it how we’d think if we interpreted Genesis literarily, literalistically or even literally, but he must have done it!

Again, bingo!

Dave L

This god would be ‘tricky’ because it certainly LOOKS to all the scientists as if science is disproving a literal historical reading of Genesis.

I recall that in the last thread on this subject, the only way you could respond to the notion that the earth appears to be old; by all measurable scientific data appears to be old; but is in reality not old; is by suggesting that God is deceptive. I would offer a different conclusion - Instead of stating that God is tricky or deceptive, acknowledging that the scientific community rea cannot explain the age of the earth since all of creation was a supernatural creative act from God? Creation ex nihilo is a big hurdle for scientists.

I want to respond to your comment that Jesus miracles is

VASTLY different to the YEC / TE time-scales and problems.

If two scientists were transported back in time to
a) creation of Adam and Eve
b) the Wedding at Cana

The first scientist would most likely deny that Adam and Eve were only a day old as all evidence would show that they were adult humans and he/she would also deny that the earth is days old due to the evidence that suggest otherwise.

As for the scientist at the Wedding. He would annalyse the wine and deny that it was seconds/ minutes old as all imperical date pertaining to wine production and fermentaion proves that this wine is years old.

Jesus first miracle in John’s Gospel shows Christ’ creative power, which is consistent with who he is and the role he had in creation (John 1:1-3; Col 1:16). John begins his prologue by saying that Word (who created the world) became flesh and tabernacled amongst us and that they had seen his glory (v.14) Obviously the pinnacle of his glory was in the cross, but the signs of Jesus in John’s Gospel have very strong connections with Jesus authoritative and creative power that point to his identity and purpose.  GI think the link with the Jesus miracles and creation have a very strong connection and furthermore to label God as tricky (or deceptive I think is what you implied in the last thread on this subject) I think is to make God the lesser and scientific opinion the superior which I think is unhelpful.

Joshua

Creation ex nihilo

I totally agree that the problem for the atheist is that anything at all exists! Existence itself is a rather big one! But that’s actually not the topic.

Then you stated

I think is to make God the lesser and scientific opinion the superior which I think is unhelpful.

No, my understanding is that John Dickson and others are saying that while science might tell us that God took billions of years to fashion, the first few chapters of Genesis focus on WHY God made it and are not actually concerned with the scientific issues of our evolution / YEC debate at all. That’s something we nervously impose on the text from the vantage point of 3000 years later.

Other than that, was there anything else I missed in the rest of your post? I understood the ‘apparent age’ argument from Jesus miracles and the creation narrative the first time around.

John Dickson may not be alone.  That God made all things and Why God made all things are theological questions.  We do a disservice to Genesis, in my view, when we try to make it conform to some kind of historico-scientific view of the world.

Whatever the scientists and historians may conclude from their interpretation of the presnt state of things and how they got that way has no impact on the theological issues about Whay God made all things or even that God made them.

My concern with YECS is that it seems to be arguing for a way to interpret the scientific data that conforms for a pre-determined view that the earth is only 6000 years old - a view derived from chronological view of the Bible that was first propounded by Bishop Ussher in the 18th or 19th century.  The contemporary expression of it may be slightly refined but it began there.

Actually Joshua I think your assertions contain a presupposition that requires challenge.
If a scientist were to meet Adam and Eve at a day old s/he would not necessarily make that assumption. You, I think were talking about an atheist scientist whose mind is closed to other possibilities. The same applies to the Wedding at Canaa.
In fact there are many scientists who are not atheists and many who are Christians. I think this is a basic problem in the wording of more formal YECS proponents. They like to create a strawman of “science” and “evolutionist” (which they apply equally and falsely to biologist, geologist and astronomer without much in the way of qualification- and I only say that cos I expect that some do make a qualification, I have yet to see it) and imply that these are somehow non-Christian cliques.

And, once again the issue is that the overwhelming external evidence is that the universe and the world is very old. Not just the evidence of one or two random arenas of science but the whole lot. If everything points to an old universe and an old earth. And that this recognition of age was reluctantly given way to on the basis of evidence then there is a serious case to argue that God was being a trickster in making it all look old when it is only a few thousand years old. It is NOT a matter of interpretation! That battle was fought over a century ago. The new arguements against an old earth and an older universe are recycled and offer nothing other than a threat to the expansion of scientific enquiry.
I do not think it offers anything to further the cause of the church other than to demonstrate that “it takes all sorts”.

My concern with YECS is that it seems to be arguing for a way to interpret the scientific data that conforms for a pre-determined view that the earth is only 6000 years old - a view derived from chronological view of the Bible that was first propounded by Bishop Ussher in the 18th or 19th century.  The contemporary expression of it may be slightly refined but it began there.

Umm, Ussher died in 1656.
Nor was he the first.

That battle was fought over a century ago.

How could the battle have been fought a century ago when they had no knowledge of DNA, nor of chemistry like we know it today. (They only discovered the nucleus in 1909.)

The new arguements against an old earth and an older universe are recycled and offer nothing other than a threat to the expansion of scientific enquiry.

How is the study of radiocarbon in diamonds, for example, “a threat to the expansion of scientific enquiry”?

Dave wrote;

the first few chapters of Genesis focus on WHY God made it (the world and all that is in it)

Dave from those first few chapters ‘Why’ did God make the world?

Dave L.,

Wikipedia says that the story of the Enuma Elish “probably dates to the 18th century BC ... although some scholars give a later date (14th to 12 centuries BC.)”

When do you think Genesis was written?

Dave L.,

The reason that I ask is that the 18th century BC was Hammurabi’s time.  Hammurabi is also known as Khammu-rabi, Ammirapaltu or Amraphel. (from Easton’s Revised Bible Dictionary).

Amraphel (king of Shinar) appears in Genesis 14:1 and 9.  His army was one of the four responsible for carrying Lot and all his goods away from Sodom so that Abram had to go out to fight and rescue him (Genesis 14:16).

So how could the Enuma Elish story predate the Genesis creation story?  Are you suggesting that Abra(ha)m did not know the Genesis creation story?

My own view is that the Enuma Elish is a corruption of the Genesis creation story, not its source.

My understanding is that Genesis was finally compiled from different materials into one finished book after the EE was codified. So while the stories and histories you refer to are older than when the EE was finally written, so are they older than when Genesis was finally written.

In other words, there’s plenty of time and scope for Genesis to be rebuking a number of the pagan myths. Indeed, while there are particular parallels with the EE, Genesis overturns many of the ancient creation myths.

Craig T, why we we created? For the Sabbath rest. We’re ‘still in’ the 7th day… it isn’t closed off in the same neat refrain. However, as the rest of the unfolding biblical theology obviously explains, our sin spoiled that rest and we now have to “make every effort to enter that rest.” (Hebrews)

So if you like, the 7th ‘day’ of Genesis goes straight to the heart of many catechisms and boldly states that mankind was created for the blessing of resting in God.

Then of course there’s all the other fantastically controversial statements such as the stars are our servants… mere time pieces, not ‘gods’, God speaks and creation obeys… there’s no ‘battles’ over separating the waters, etc. This is radical stuff to the ancient mind!

So after wading through all 1000 lines of the EE, there are amazing parallels. I found most of it a repetitive and bizarre recitation of heavenly court gossip between pagan gods worried about impending war. Finally a bizarre battle ensues where Marduk ‘distracts’ Tiamat by shoving a hurricane into her mouth and then finally putting a sword through her and cutting her in half… which becomes a dividing of the waters routine. Apparently even the ‘dividing of the waters’ is common throughout the ancient world, not just the EE… but I haven’t become obsessed enough with all these pagan myths to read through them all! ;-)

Anyway, it continues into the next 7 stages of creation and they pretty much follow the routines established in Genesis. I’ve outlined some of the basic similarities here.

Craig T, why we we created? For the Sabbath rest. We’re ‘still in’ the 7th day… it isn’t closed off in the same neat refrain. However, as the rest of the unfolding biblical theology obviously explains, our sin spoiled that rest and we now have to “make every effort to enter that rest.” (Hebrews)

So if you like, the 7th ‘day’ of Genesis goes straight to the heart of many catechisms and boldly states that mankind was created for the blessing of resting in God.

Thanks Dave, many people have said that Genesis 1 and 2 tell us why we were created, but I didn’t know that was what they were talking about.  I think from the passage though that reason is not given.  It is an argument from silence.  I think the why we were created is given in the rest of scripture in that God was creating a bride for His Son.

Revelation 21:2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
Mark 2:19
Jesus answered, “How can the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is with them? They cannot, so long as they have him with them.

The reason why God made us is to glorify His Son by providing a beautiful bride for Him.  Yet we don’t see this in Genesis 1 and 2.  So although the Sabbath Rest is hinted at, it certainly is not indicated as the reason for the creation, no reason is given, and so I don’t think that the Sabbath rest is the main point of those passages.

Genesis 2:2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

This verse seems to be about God resting not us resting.  It is not until Exodus 20:8-11 some thousands of years later that God applied the rest to us.  The original readers would not have seen the Sabbath as being applied to them.

Who were the ‘original readers’? When was it written? The argument I’ve heard from a number of sermons on Genesis is that the stark formula shift with the 7th day never ending, and God resting on that day and ‘blessing’ it really does spell out that this rest was the reason for creation. What does ‘blessing the day’ mean? It’s not just God resting, not at all. God blesses a particular ‘day’ of the ‘week’, a ‘day’ that never actually ends if one reads the text closely.

I wish to emphasise a few other points John Dickson makes after writing much on the difference between reading it literalistically (at face value) and literally with all the literary genre’s in mind…

Both six-day creationists and scientific materialists approach Genesis 1 as if the original author had intended to narrate the mechanics of creation in historical prose. I believe this is a mistaken, literalistic reading. For over a century now, a great many biblical historians have detected in the Bible’s opening words a style other than simple prose and a purpose other than to explain how the universe was made. These two issues - genre and purpose - are critical for understanding this foundational portion of the Jewish and Christian Bible. In what follows, then, I want to unpack what many modern scholars are saying about these issues and demonstrate that, properly understood, Genesis 1 teaches nothing scientifically problematic for the modern enquirer. I emphasize the adverb ‘scientifically’, since there is plenty in Genesis 1 that is theologically and existentially confronting. That is the aim of the text, as I understand it.

and then…

In fact, the case made below is consistent with virtually any scientific account of origins. To put it starkly but no less accurately, even if science ended up proving that the universe was created in six days around 6000 year ago, this happy correspondence between the scientific data and the surface structure of Genesis 1 would not affect my interpretation of the text at all. I would still insist that the opening chapter of the Bible does not aim to teach a particular cosmic chronology and that to suggest otherwise misconstrues the author’s original intention.

Then we have the number 7…

a) The first sentence of Genesis 1 consists of seven Hebrew words. Instantly, the ancient reader’s attention is focused;
b) The second sentence contains exactly fourteen words. A pattern is developing;
c) The word ‘earth’—one half of the created sphere—appears in the chapter 21 times;
d) The word ‘heaven’—the other half of the created sphere—also appears 21 times.
e) ‘God’, the lead actor, is mentioned exactly 35 times.
f) The refrain ‘and it was so,’ which concludes each creative act, occurs exactly seven times;
g) The summary statement ‘God saw that it was good’ also occurs seven times;
h) It hardly needs to be pointed out that the whole account is structured around seven scenes or seven days of the week.

The Purpose of Genesis also has some really good points on the difference in the creation of mankind in Genesis as a pinnacle of God’s creative act rather than as an ‘afterthought’ as in the EE.

Another great article by John Dickson is the History of Creationism which seems to be becoming quite popular in the Sydney Anglican world.

Regards

Dave L.,

My understanding is that Genesis was finally compiled from different materials into one finished book after the EE was codified. So while the stories and histories you refer to are older than when the EE was finally written, so are they older than when Genesis was finally written.

In other words, there’s plenty of time and scope for Genesis to be rebuking a number of the pagan myths. Indeed, while there are particular parallels with the EE, Genesis overturns many of the ancient creation myths.

When you say, “there’s plenty of time and scope for Genesis to be rebuking a number of the pagan myths,” the implication, to me at least, is that the Genesis story had to be somehow changed in order to make it function as a rebuke. 

For any piece of writing to be a rebuke something worthy of rebuke must have been said or done before the piece of writing was created.  In the case of Genesis 1 we have two alternatives; either the story known by Abraham had to be altered to its current form to make it function as a rebuke or it was already in its current form.

If it was already in its current form then it can’t be described as a rebuke since it was created/told/written-down-somehow prior to there being a Marduk/Bel cosmology to rebuke.  If it was already in its current form then writing it down doesn’t make it a rebuke.  It just makes it written down.

Now I suppose you could say that it was created/told/written-down-somehow to rebuke some earlier pagan story about origins.  But AFIK we don’t have any evidence of anything earlier that presents a full-blown pagan creation story requiring rebuke.  The Epic of Gilgamesh certainly doesn’t seem to qualify as such.  And before Abraham what do you have?  The Tower of Babel and, before that, the Flood.

Wilhelm Schmidt was a Catholic priest and early anthropologist who did extensive research on the origin and growth of religion.  He said that as you go further back into the history of polytheistic societies you find fewer and fewer gods.

“What Schmidt is able to prove conclusively is that if primitive cultures are grouped on the basis of their cultural level and these groups are then placed in an ascending order, it is found that the lowest groups have the purest concept of God and that as one progresses from mere hunters to food gatherers and storers, to food growers in the form of pastoral nomads maintaining flocks, to food growers in the sense of settled land use, and on up the scale to semi-urban communities, one finds at first a simple faith in a Supreme Being who has neither wife nor family.

“Under Him and created by Him are the primal pair from which the tribe is descended. According to Schmidt we find this form of belief among the Pygmies of Central Africa, the South-east Australians, the inhabitants of North central California, the primitive Algonkins - and to a certain extent the Koryaka and Aimu.”

See here.  Can’t find a better link on Schmidt’s work right now but this one is worth reading.

From Schmidt’s research it doesn’t seem unreasonable to believe that the first great city-state (Babylon) would be the first to descend into gross polytheism.  But that the Babylonians descended into polytheism gives us no good reason to believe that Genesis 1 had to be changed from the original in order to offer a rebuke to them.  Shouldn’t the truth be enough? 

Ignoring for a moment the living that OT academics get from teaching the rebuke theory of Genesis 1 why not just believe that the story is as it was originally told?

To put it starkly but no less accurately, even if science ended up proving that the universe was created in six days around 6000 year ago, this happy correspondence between the scientific data and the surface structure of Genesis 1 would not affect my interpretation of the text at all. I would still insist that the opening chapter of the Bible does not aim to teach a particular cosmic chronology and that to suggest otherwise misconstrues the author’s original intention.

Eh? I read this as:

“If evidence was found that proved the history in the text, it wouldn’t make any difference to me because the author wasn’t intending to convey historic facts.”

“The author narrates the creation as 6 days but his intention was not to convey that creation occurred in 6 days.”

Loopy. Worthy of Basil Fawlty. “I wasn’t insulting you. I was just looking at you while I was insulting her. Happens all the time.”

This supposed choice between literary structure or historic narrative is a false dichotomy.