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.”
Michael
I don’t think you have given sufficient weight to the words “surface structure of Genesis 1” in your analysis of Dave’s remarks.
Bob
Because honestly, I can see far more overlap and ‘links’ between Genesis 1 and the EE than I could with any of the supposed links in your unusual lists.
In other words, the opening line of Genesis 1 starting with 7 words, continuing with the next sentence in Hebrew having 14 words, and all the other ‘7’s structure AND the fact that the opening lines and subsequent days absolutely echo the EE — I’m thinking Genesis 1 opens with a tone somewhere between “Once upon a time” and “Australians all let us rejoice”. It’s got symbolic numbering coming out of it’s ears AND is an intertextual reference of a particularly fastidious nature, making sure to quote every one of the 7 stages of the EE creation myth.
False dichotomy? You’d put a false dichotomy between trusting in our God, believing His word, and being free to study his world. The false dichotomy being inserted here is the compulsive need to read it literalistically OR it’s just not God’s word any more, as if the bible didn’t have any other symbolic passages! When the evidence is so clear, I seriously have trouble understanding what all the fuss is about.
You’d have us read strange random lists of topics and verses that have nothing to do with each other, and miss the obvious connections with what was almost the national anthem of the ancient world?
Well… maybe they didn’t actually sing it. ;-) But JD says they gathered annually to have the whole 7 tablets read out in public. So maybe it resonated like “At the going down of the sun, we will remember them”. The wars of the gods, heroic Marduk, and a bit of creation thrown in. It’s all good.
Which parts of our national anthem aren’t actually true? You are making Genesis 1-2 out to be more like Rome’s Romulus & Remus myth.
I haven’t read the EE, but with my bias, I would take it the same way I take the Gilgamesh epic and the Ancient Near East suzerainty treaties - corrupted hand-me-downs of the original we have in God’s Word.
(see http://www.ancientdays.net/nimrod.htm for an excellent article on Nimrod/Gilgamesh)
Regarding the suzerainty treaties, liberal scholars regard the biblical examples as derived from the pagan ones. I would put it the other way around.
God’s covenant with Abraham follows a five-fold chiastic structure. This pattern is common in suzerainty treaties of the ancient Near East, when conquering pagan kings would establish covenants with their new vassals. These were derived from God’s original pattern.
These treaties had five points:
1 an identification of the king (preamble)
2 the historical events that led to the establishment of the covenant
3 terms and conditions of the covenant
4 a warning of judgment against anyone who disobeyed, but a promise of blessing to those who did obey
5 a system of reconfirming the treaty at the death of the king or vassal
The book of Deuteronomy, where Moses repeats the law to Israel before they cross the Jordan, follows this pattern. This five-point Covenant structure also governs the books of Psalms, Hosea and Matthew, as well as Hebrews 8, and several of Paul’s epistles. As you might expect, it is the framework for the Ten Commandments. Most surprisingly, it is also evident in the book of Revelation, when the curses of Deuteronomy 28 fall upon the Old Covenant people for the last time.
Step 3 in the ANE treaty is the terms and conditions of the Covenant, the Law. In practice, in Scripture, this point gets opened into 3 points, ie. law - testing - law, with the law repeated to the next generation. That gives us the 7 fold exodus pattern I have also been talking about.
So, as I said, with my bias, I would see the Bible as the original, not a derivative.
Michael
What interests me about your admitted bias is the apparent need to feel that Bible can only be the authoritative word of God if it pre-dates other documents with marked similarities. If God were to take an ancient myth [and frankly, I don’t know if he did or not] and rework it to communicate the truth, how does this make it less authoritative? What if some of Jesus’ parables were familiar stories which he gave a new twist? Does that make them any less powerful, true, or divinely authoritative?
Bob
There’s a huge amount at stake here. Either the “pop-history” we are constantly fed about the cultural evolution of stone and bronze age peoples is true, and God stepped in to modify pagan mythology to communicate some poetic, convoluted so-called “truth” (ie Gen 1:1 is the only verse that’s actually true), or the history recorded in Genesis is true. That sort of thinking needs to be discarded.
The Bible won’t let us disconnect the Creation account from the chronology that leads to Christ. Even John Dickson (basically) admits that when he refers to 6000 years. That doesn’t come from the passage he is dealing with. It comes from the chronology.
What gets me is that this issue was not generated from issues within the text. Supposed issues with the text are bandied about because of a desire to believe the Bible and pop-science.
I think whether the creation account is true or not has a huge impact on its authority?
Jesus’ parables are quite obviously stories. That’s cheating. Early Genesis is connected to the history that follows. Anyhow, this ground has been covered before and we are off topic ; ) To get it back on topic (a bit) here’s a great quote:
Science without controls is not science
from Uri Brito http://apologus.notsorry.net
James Jordan makes some interesting remarks concerning scientific methods and the questions posed by science.1 According to Jordan, modern scientific assumptions about the present betray the past and an accurate approach to the future. Science assumes that what we have today (referring to scientific discoveries) is exactly as it was in the past. However, scientific questions posed today are vastly different than the ones posed one hundred years ago. What Jordan is questioning with this reasoning is that science cannot be certain of its claims in the present, hence it must be seen with skepticism and understood for its limitations. When scientists claim certainty in their methods, they are in essence claiming ignorance of the lessons of the past and the future. Jordan writes:
“The point of all of this is that the past is not subject to the kinds of controls and observation that science requires. Interpreting the past involves guesswork to a far greater degree than observational science, and thus there is far more room for presuppositions and assumptions to play a role."2
Jordan argues that unbelievers invariably are prone to wander in their scientific endeavors. Hence, “unbelieving ‘science’ does not perceive the true nature of the universe.”3 Their worldviews restrain them from seeing biblical truth, exchanging it for a lie. Jordan concludes that “when Christians operate on the same premises as unbelievers, they will not perceive aright either.”4 Is it any wonder that natural theologians have begun to deny the historicity of the Creation account?
Jordan makes one further assertion worthy of consideration. He argues that Matthew 13 provides an excellent example of the intention of the Biblical record. According to our Lord, the parables were meant to reveal truth to believers and to deceive unbelievers. Jordan draws a similar parallel to revelation in creation. “If creational revelation is truly revelation, then it partakes of this same parabolic nature.”5 As the written word misleads the faithless, so does the natural Word. Any approach that seeks to dispel the account of the Scripture is prone to self-deception.
Footnotes
Chapter 6 of Creation in Six Days: A Defense of the Traditional Reading of Genesis One
Page 126, Creation in Six Days
Ibid. 126
126
127
Michael, did you really answer the question Bob asked?
Your answer avoided the actual question and basically just said “No… ‘cause I don’t like it… and there’s the chronologies”.
The literary devices used in Genesis 1 are quite different to the chronologies, which have their own points. The language switches. There’s a compilation of different source texts. There’s different styles and different points in each style… the chronologies are not really an obstacle to Genesis 1 being symbolic.
Genesis 1 is connected to the chronologies. It cannot be separated, as “admitted” by JD.
It should be quite obvious that fighting a fairy tale with a fairy tale is not God’s style. Again, the parables are very obviously parables. Early Genesis is consistently presented as history.
The key here is to treat Bible books the way other Bible books treat them. If the New Testament writers were inspired, then it follows that the account given in Genesis is historically accurate. Geisler and Nix give a list of thirty-two people and events of the Old Testament which are referred to as historical by New Testament writers. Fifteen of these are from the first twelve chapters of Genesis:
Creation of the universe (Gen. 1), John 1:3; Col. 1:16
Creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1-2), 1 Tim. 2:13-14
Marriage of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1-2), 1 Tim. 2:13
Temptation of the woman (Gen. 3), 1 Tim 2:14
Disobedience of Adam (Gen. 3), Rom 5:12; 1 Cor.15:22
Sacrifices of Abel and Cain (Gen. 4), Heb. 11:4
Murder of Abel by Cain (Gen. 4), 1 John 3:12
Birth of Seth (Gen. 4), Luke 3:38
Translation of Enoch (Gen. 5), Heb. 11:5
Marriage before the flood (Gen. 6), Luke 17:27
The flood and destruction of man (Gen. 7), Matt. 24:39
Preservation of Noah and his family (Gen. 8-9), 2 Peter 2:5
Genealogy of Shem (Gen. 10), Luke 3:35-36
Birth of Abraham (Gen. 11), Luke 3:34
Call of Abraham (Gen. 12-13), Heb. 11:87
Geisler, Norman L. and William E. Nix. A General Introduction to the Bible, p. 86.
The most controversial miracles are not just alluded to but authenticated as historical events by the New Testament. That is, if we can TRUST the NT. It’s all or nothing when it comes to Genesis. It’s the only origins story that IS NOT “once upon a time.”
The literary devices used in Genesis 1 are quite different to the
chronologies, which have their own points. The language switches. There’s
a compilation of different source texts. There’s different styles and
different points in each style… the chronologies are not really an
obstacle to Genesis 1 being symbolic.
I disagree with every one of these statements, and so do the experts. That quote from Oxford Hebrew scholar James Barr deals with all of them. And it deals with John Dickson. Here it is again.
“...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story; Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.”
My point with Bob’s question was that it comes out of wrong thinking about ancient history. Unbelievers are looking for cultural evolution, so that’s what they see in the data. The Bible presents cultural degradation. The Bible is fundamentally incompatible with pop-science and pop-history. It cuts through godless philosophies precisely because it is true.
There’s a huge amount at stake here. Either the “pop-history” we are constantly fed about the cultural evolution of stone and bronze age peoples is true, and God stepped in to modify pagan mythology to communicate some poetic, convoluted so-called “truth” (ie Gen 1:1 is the only verse that’s actually true), or the history recorded in Genesis is true.
. . . I think whether the creation account is true or not has a huge impact on its authority
Michael, I am not disputing that Genesis 1 is true. The issue is, through what kind of literary devices does it communicate truth. Your insistence on reading it as a chronological, historical reading and equating that with truth actually begs the question that is under discussion. As far as I can see, no one has actually argued cogently for this definition of truth.
What gets me is that this issue was not generated from issues within the text. Supposed issues with the text are bandied about because of a desire to believe the Bible and pop-science.
It’s a perfectly valid exercise to allow the Bible to interact with our understanding of the world from other sources. We don’t let those sources dictate to us what the Bible says, but they can certainly inform us. And by the by, I think to dismiss some of the science in question as “pop science” does not really do justice to the many, many decades of serious research by highly qualified scientists (Christians, agnostics, atheists and others) that is involved here.
Jesus’ parables are quite obviously stories. That’s cheating.
I’m not saying that Genesis 1 is the same literary genre as the parables, only that it would not rob the parables of their authority if Jesus adapted existing material rather than creating a unique story from scratch. [Interestingly some of the ‘parables’ may have referred to actual known events (e.g., the parable of the wicked tenants, Mark 12).]
James Jordan makes some interesting remarks concerning scientific methods and the questions posed by science.
There’s much here that I agree with, and I share a certain healthy (but not hostile) skepticism with regards to some of the ‘assured’ findings of science. Many claim much more for science than can legitimately be claimed according to its own methods and assumptions. That is why, while I lean towards an old earth viewpoint, I would not be in the slightest bit discombobulated if it became apparent to me that the YECs were absolutely correct and the world is only 6000 years old.
But that doesn’t mean that we need to just put all scientific discovery on a shelf and forget about it. Again, meaningful interaction can be very beneficial, within the framework of the Bible’s final authority in all matters of faith and life.
As to the question in my previous post, as Dave says, you haven’t answered it. It’s a principle question, so you probably need to step away from the Genesis 1 issue and consider other examples as well to answer it.
Mr Bull
Tread carefully.
You are coming close to making the claim that literal understandings of Genesis is the only true Christian stance to take.
Not only do I think you are wrong, I think you are dangerously close to placing obstacles in peoples’ ways to Christ.
In the real world where Evolution is a Theory and YECS isn’t even up to the status of hypothesis such claims are truly a challenge to faith. And you can decry the wickedness of science and how they mistreat YECS advocates and refuse to publish their papers until the cows come home. Hovind and Gish et al have little credibility for good reason as far as I can see.
The world is at least as old as it appears to be. The apparent age idea is, IMO, a dangerous falsehood, making God the first author of falsehood… which would make him the father of lies. I totally reject that claim. I know you do too. God doesn’t lie. But your approach is to say that we are misinterpreting the evidence. Perhaps slightly. But nothing like to the extent that YECS claims would have it. The repeated motifs that you have pointed to are intriguing (Thanks for them, I have found it informative) but that is not the same as making the demand that they are history, as per the text. If we have to accept that then we seem, under your logic, to have a choice. The written word of the Bible or the evidence.
If we are to do that we encounter other obstacles. The misalignement of the two creation stories. As history they are a problem and become unreliable. And they are scant descriptions of massive events. If they are in doubt, in their state in such poor detail- and they really are to me. Then I have the choice of two poor histories vs evidence. To my mind the YECS arguement drives me from the Bible.
If the dichotomy of science vs the Bible (I use the word “science” because YECS falsely equates “evolution” across anything implying an old earth- even astronomy) then I have a choice between an ancient text subject to multiple interpretations and translations and theories across a raft of divisions, denominations and theologies; many of which don’t agree on basic points. And I say this on the basis that if I were to take on the literalist approach then I would do so honestly. I would discard all assumptions and return to basic questions. This would mean the issue of “Is God real?” is open to question, let alone “Should I accept the claims of the JW’s, Mormons or the Orthodox etc?”
At this very point I think the tension between an evidence based system where claims are tested and re tested vs, should I get to the point where I am willing to even temporarily accept the arguements of YECS, where rumour and repeated nonsense is not tested....
I would, as would many, be forced to reject Christ. I think many YECS people believe that they are some sort of apex at which all Christians aspire. Many of us could onl,y get there by degrees and only by ignoring the voice of reason.
If you are like me and are interested in not only the arguements, but also in the mechanisms that underpin the reasoning then Science appeals, YECS does not.
If you value Scripture over anything else, then YECS is still a problem. The conflicts in the Genesis stories are not easily reconciled under a literalist format.
Feel free to argue on, but understand the potential for every claim built on the structure “Non-YECS = a lie”.
It should be quite obvious that fighting a fairy tale with a fairy tale is not God’s style.
This is simply creating a straw man to knock him down. No one is saying that Genesis 1 is a fairy tale nor that it is not history. Fair go, Michael, don’t caricature those you disagree with.
My point with Bob’s question was that it comes out of wrong thinking about ancient history. Unbelievers are looking for cultural evolution, so that’s what they see in the data. The Bible presents cultural degradation. The Bible is fundamentally incompatible with pop-science and pop-history. It cuts through godless philosophies precisely because it is true.
Again, this is way off base. Whether unbelievers are looking for cultural evolution or not, apart from being a huge generalisation, is irrelevant, as I am neither an unbeliever nor a proponent of cultural evolution - and I would hope that you are responding to me, not some alleged spectre behind me.
What I am seeking to take account of in terms of extra-biblical material is the ‘findings’ (and please note that I have already qualified that word in my previous post) of astronomy, geology, biology, and the like. Not all of such science is agenda driven, and certainly not all of it is anti-Christian or anti-God agenda driven.
But still, you haven’t answered the question of principle that I asked about the nature of Biblical authority and the use by Bible authors and speakers of existing literary material.
Forgive me if I have caricatured anyone. I fail to see how early Genesis is not a fairy tale if it’s not true. As I understand, you are arguing for a kind of ‘true fairy tale’.
I feel my remarks about cultural evolution are relevant, but I may have termed it incorrectly. The pop history we are taught is based on wrong assumptions and the idea that any of early Genesis is modified from pagan mythology is born within that errant historical framework.
I agree that not all (non-observational) science is ‘self-consciously’ agenda driven.
Biblical authors do use extra-biblical material. There is evidence that Jesus alluded to Greek mythology when he questioned Paul on the road to Damascus. But what we are dealing with in Genesis is a different animal. The Word of God is presented consistently in Scripture as the “prime mover”, not some “Johnny-come-lately” who borrows from pagan culture when God finally decides to have something to do with history. God always starts the ball rolling, and He does it according to a pattern, and it is always an instantaneous “injection” of new life.
We have used “literary criticism” to deny the meaning of the text. We come to the Bible as judges rather than as the accused.
I would also argue that our inability to accept that God would create the world in such an ordered fashion comes from our evolutionary presuppositions. It seems too perfect to be part of the universe we think we live in. Our thinking is delineated by chaos and death and we need to see beyond it with the eyes of faith. We have fallen from something better, not magically grown out of a history of chaos and death. That is so not God’s style.
Forgive me if I have caricatured anyone. I fail to see how early Genesis is not a fairy tale if it’s not true. As I understand, you are arguing for a kind of ‘true fairy tale’.
True fairy tale? Michael, after all Bob’s qualifying statements how can you write like that?
We have used “literary criticism” to deny the meaning of the text. We come to the Bible as judges rather than as the accused.
Rubbish… we have used literary criticism to understand the genre of the text so we CAN understand it. If we come to the bible admitting that we don’t know everything about Hebrew and need to study the language, and this might involve non-biblical lessons in Hebrew, then why can’t we also do some basic hermeneutics and study the pre-existing culture into which Genesis was written?
With all the rich symbolism of the 7’s in Genesis (did I quote JD’s 7’s stuff in this thread?), and the sheer parallels in the EE, I think JD has an enormously powerful argument for Genesis NOT being a fairy tale, but being a strong meme re-write, a theological correction through highly symbolic writing.
Anyway, if you are correct about Genesis 1 not being a symbolic reference with important theological statements that the rest of the bible keeps referring back to but being actually literalistically true, then I guess Revelation has to be literalistically true as well.... or it’s just not “true!”
OK, I’ve read it. I can understand where you are coming from, but I find this approach to the Scripture offensive. I would say the EE is a corruption of the Genesis account, in the same way Gilgamesh and the ANE suzerainty treaties derive from Genesis. You are presupposing that ancient culture predated Genesis, which looks like each section was handed down. So I would not try to distance it from Genesis at all, but argue that you have got the horse behind the cart.
If you want an expert opinion on the EE, and Gilgamesh, read Clifford Wilson on “Genesis and the Lost Tablets.” Took me all of 10 seconds to find it.
http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1746
“In more recent years the fragmentary Epic of Atrahasis has been translated, and now it is seen that creation, the role of man, and the Flood are brought together as one continuous record. Suddenly the world of Biblical archaeology has had to recognize that the comparable (but dramatically superior) records in Genesis must be accepted as an actual historical presentation. The famed Professor W.F. Albright (now deceased) wrote that the Genesis details of the Flood contain elements which predate any other description.”
Read that and get back to me ; )
I would like to hear anyone’s responses on this and:
a) James Barr’s expert opinion, seeing as we favour the opinions of experts
and
b) how you get around the 15 references to Genesis as historic fact in the New Testament.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
The winning short film in the 2008 Ignite Short Film Festival.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
