Michael Bull -
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’.

Your conclusion is wrong because your premise is wrong.  Let me spell it out clearly:  I BELIEVE GENESIS 1 IS TRUE - along with the rest of Genesis, the Pentateuch, the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Bob

You want me to read ‘archaeology’ from creationontheweb? Sorry. Life’s too short. I had family send me some creationist stuff a decade ago and there began a few years of reading their ‘best creationist books’ and arguing with a Christian science student mate of mine. He’s now finished his Masters and… well… that discussion ended quite a few years ago. He basically laughed at some of the arguments I was relating to him.

To be frank, I just don’t trust creationist ‘science’ any more. If it’s in peer reviewed archaeology magazines in the secular world of atheists, Christians, Jews, Moslems, etc all looking at it objectively, then maybe. Truth will out as they say. Presuppositions coming to their conclusions is as old as the hills.

b) how you get around the 15 references to Genesis as historic fact in the New Testament.

Well, you’d have to prove that assertion. I thought they were making theological points… but that’s just crazy old me.

Michael Bull - 07 July 2008 05:54 PM

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.

I’ll watch this space.

a) James Barr is a fine scholar who holds numerous expert opinions which are exactly that - opinions.  On any one of his opinions you would find other fine scholars who would disagree.  Quoting such experts adds to the debate but it doesn’t prove your case.
b) No need to “get around” anything.  Genesis is full of historic facts, and I don’t see anyone here saying otherwise.
Bob

Yes, that’s a good point Bob. Genesis IS full of historic facts, and I’ve mainly limited my discussion to Genesis 1 being symbolic.

Some even see Adam and Eve as figurative for the first humans (because of a talking snake, “tree of life” etc) but I’d like to see how they then flow that synthesis into the chronologies.

Feel free to argue on, but understand the potential for every claim built on the structure “Non-YECS = a lie”.

Hi Owen

Thanks for that response. I quoted above that if Christians use the same faulty criteria as unbelievers for interpreting creation, we will make the same errors. If you step outside the Bible, you are wrong, Christian or not. Those who try to reconcile the Bible with the ever-revised pop science and pop history have to invent a new literary genre, the true fairy tale. I’ll keep calling it that because that’s what it is. Brilliant fools like Richard Dawkins are right when they point out such inconsistency.

I have made a point of arguing from the text alone, which puts the compromisers in a tough spot. YECs can be wrong. OECs and the godless can be wrong. The Bible cannot be wrong. I think I have made reasonable arguments for:

1 the fact that a literary structure does not mean the narrative is not history. I can also send you the mind-blowing structures of other books and passages (NT and OT) which you would argue till blue are historic fact (I hope).

2 that the supposed ‘contradictions’ between Gen 1 and 2 are due to such a literary structure.

I am not basing my arguments on YEC. I am basing them on an agenda-free interpretation of Genesis and the agenda-free experts seem to agree. You are looking for literary ‘clues’ that are non-existent in order to accommodate a contrary philosophy. This is plain old gnosticism. The text can be understood without contriving a new genre.

Dave Lankshear - 07 July 2008 06:08 PM

Yes, that’s a good point Bob. Genesis IS full of historic facts, and I’ve mainly limited my discussion to Genesis 1 being symbolic.

Furthermore, I wouldn’t want to say that Genesis 1 is purely symbolic.  To do so would be to reject it as having any historic element, and I think that would be a huge mistake.  The issues here for me are: 1) What are the historic facts that Genesis 1 is actually asserting?, and 2) What are the literary modes (symbolism, poetry, chiasm, etc) via which those historic facts are being asserted?

Michael Bull -
If you step outside the Bible, you are wrong, Christian or not.

and

Brilliant fools like Richard Dawkins are right when they point out such inconsistency.

Does anyone else see the contradiction here?!?

Bob Cameron - 07 July 2008 06:18 PM

Michael Bull -
If you step outside the Bible, you are wrong, Christian or not.

and

Brilliant fools like Richard Dawkins are right when they point out such inconsistency.

Does anyone else see the contradiction here?!?

Bob, I think my quite separate points were pretty plain. Dawkins is wrong because he is outside the Bible, but he can spot the inconsistency, as can my scripture kids.

Dave, the article is on their website, but it is actually written by the archaeologist. You won’t find it offensive or misleading.

I think if someone tried to make an authoritative theological point based on the Gilgamesh epic I would laugh, even if it was Jesus. Homosexuality is wrong because God made Hansel and Gretel, the first hominids. Jesus rose from the dead in history to symbolically defeat the great troll under the bridge and teach a future resurrection so we can all feel better about ourselves. This is why the western church is dying. We sold the farm long ago. Christianity will have little success here engaging with our culture until we teach the Bible as history, because without that factor, it has no authority.

Well, it’s been interesting, but it’s gnosticism. And it doesn’t look like I am going to get real answers to a) and b).

Here’s that definition once again:

“Gnosticism is the tendency to de-historicise and de-physicalise Christianity. It subtly transforms history into mere ideology and facts into mere philosophy.”

If you’re ever in Katoomba, I’m happy to meet for a beer! My shout.

The Gilgamesh story attempts to place Babylon supreme over the whole world.

The Bible accounts in Genesis 1-11 are stories which place God (one God) as supreme over the creation and early history of the region.

A lot of stories which existed in the ancient world are re-worked in order to explain to the nations around Israel, that God is the Creator, and that Israel is His chosen people.

Genesis is a religious book primarily, not a history book.

Michael
I agree you have made your points, and clearly.
Whether or no you are referring to YECS stuff or not doesn’t matter one jot. The fact is the minute you step outside the Bible to gather evidence as to how old the earth is, and how the vast array of critters developed you end up with
1) an old earth
2) Evolution.
If you choose not to face evidence, then you will need to harken to YECS literature. It will make you feel good and it will reinforce your belief. It will not however reflect much in the way of fact or reality. I am with DL here. YECS literature is beyond reason and at best, faintly amusing. (talk about tales)

If you choose to take a Bible only approach to history then please do not ever quote archaeologists who support the Bible. It would be intellectually dishonest to do so if you refuse to pay attention to those who challenge.

1 the fact that a literary structure does not mean the narrative is not history. I can also send you the mind-blowing structures of other books and passages (NT and OT) which you would argue till blue are historic fact (I hope).

No!
Sorry. But if you are unwilling to listen to non-supporting evidence then it is completely intellectually dishonest to choose only to listen to evidence that you agree with.

This type of arguement sends a very substantial meta-message to the non-Christian world.
ie: Christians are completely unable to deal with evidence where it disagrees with them.
oh
and it also sends another meta-message
The Christian faith is on very shaky ground and they are worried.

OK
So you argue from the text that I should pay attention only to the text.
Well, if I did I am stuped. I don’t feel persuaded by your arguement that Gen 1 & 2 are different only due to literary styles. I was rather under the impression that the linguistic styles, including the name of God are radically different. The impression I had from my readings was that there were different authors at different times.
You argue I should ignore that and just grapple with the text. Context, original language, literary style, culture- all things we learn from largely external sources- I should just ignore it all.
I don’t think so.
I work with people all day. I am well acquainted with the simple fact that every communication is multi layered. I could choose to just pay attention to the words of the text. But it would leave me rather cold.

And, I never do that. The words said or written reflect context and they reflect the writer(s).
You are asking me to reduce or minimise knowledge in order, apparently to increase it.
I’m sorry, but if the facts were literally as presented in Gen then the facts would agree, and obviously so.
They don’t.

That’s just what you will have to deal with.

Michael,

1 the fact that a literary structure does not mean the narrative is not history. I can also send you the mind-blowing structures of other books and passages (NT and OT) which you would argue till blue are historic fact (I hope).

2 that the supposed ‘contradictions’ between Gen 1 and 2 are due to such a literary structure.

Please don’t bother — because your ‘literary structures’ ARE mind blowing… and so are Jordan’s. He could make structures out of the random display of the stars… what, the ancients already did that? And turned them all into pagan gods and pagan stories? Wow, Jordan’s adopted the same method… must be a gnostic.

From post #98

I think if someone tried to make an authoritative theological point based on the Gilgamesh epic I would laugh, even if it was Jesus. Homosexuality is wrong because God made Hansel and Gretel, the first hominids. Jesus rose from the dead in history to symbolically defeat the great troll under the bridge and teach a future resurrection so we can all feel better about ourselves. This is why the western church is dying. We sold the farm long ago. Christianity will have little success here engaging with our culture until we teach the Bible as history, because without that factor, it has no authority.

So if Jesus retold a pagan parable with some stings in the tail, turning the whole thing upside down and making a clear theological point, you wouldn’t accept it hey? Nice.

Bob wrote:

It’s a perfectly valid exercise to allow the Bible to interact with our understanding of the world from other sources.

That’s fine BUT in the case of the Enuma Elish you’re not just dealing with a cosmogonic myth(os).  You’re also dealing with its interpreted context.  That Genesis was written to rebuke pagan creation stories is a conclusion derived from the EE’s interpreted context, i.e., that it predates Genesis.

The idea that the EE predates Genesis comes from the Documentary Hypothesis. 

Owen wrote:

I don’t feel persuaded by your arguement that Gen 1 & 2 are different only due to literary styles. I was rather under the impression that the linguistic styles, including the name of God are radically different. The impression I had from my readings was that there were different authors at different times.

This is the Documentary Hypothesis.

One of the early presuppositions informing this hypothesis was that Moses couldn’t have written Genesis because there was no writing in his time.  The Pentateuch was assumed to have been written down around the time of the Babylonian exile.  Since the Ashurbanipal EE dated to the 7th century BC then (as Dave L., appears to believe) Genesis wasn’t written until about 200 years later.  Discovering that people have been putting things in writing since at least 2,000 BC put paid to that presupposition but, somehow, a lot of people don’t seem to have taken any notice.

Another of the presuppositions informing the hypothesis was that different names of God (Elohim versus Yahweh, or E versus J) means that different people groups used different names of God and therefore Genesis is a compilation of at least two different source documents.  The P and D documents were ‘discovered’ later on the basis of different, stylistic, literary form criticisms.

In 1941 a Jewish fellow named Umberto Cassuto wrote a book (which wasn’t translated into English till about 20 years later) in which he argued that,

The name “Yahweh” ... is the covenant Name of God, and is used when His relationship to Israel is in view. The name “Elohim,” by contrast, points to God as the God of the whole world, and is used when God’s relationship to the nations or to the universe is in view. Thus, Psalm 47:1, when it exhorts “all nations” to praise God uses the name “Elohim.” In the prophetic literature, which is directed to Israel, the name Yahweh is predominant.

This becomes especially striking in the first chapters of Genesis. Genesis 1 uses the name “Elohim” since it is describing God’s creation of the universe. Genesis 2, however, uses the unique combination “Yahweh Elohim,” showing to the Israelite reader that the God who entered into a covenant with Israel is also the God who created all things. The different names of God, then, are not evidence of separate sources. Instead, they are used to call attention to different attributes and activities of God.

If there was any re-working of Genesis it must have been done by Moses, to whom God revealed His name YHWH.  The reworking was not done for the sake of rebuking the pagan nations but for the sake of educating the Israelites as to whom they owed obedience.

Note, in relation to the OP, Cassuto, “argued that the plants that were not yet growing in Genesis 2 are the plants that ‘sprang up’ as a curse for sin.” One writer (and you can look for the links yourselves if you’re interested) said that the “plant of the field” (siyach) is a particular type of wild steppe plant that grows after rain and the “herb of the field” (eseb) is a particular type of plant that was cultivated for food.  So in Genesis 2:5 you are told that there is no siyach (because it had not rained) and there was no eseb (because there was no need yet for the man to toil by the sweat of his brow to cultivate food).  There you can see a literary structure.  A, B, A’, B’.  No big deal but it’s there.

Owen also wrote:

if the facts were literally as presented in Gen then the facts would agree, and obviously so.
They don’t.

You’re confusing facts with opinions.  At least Bob knows that when experts talk about the past all they can offer is opinions, rather like doctors offer opinions about whatever ails you and you are perfectly within your rights to go and get a second opinion.

I’ve said it before and I’ll continue to say it whether it causes cringing or not:  science cannot investigate the past.  Science can investigate what’s going on in the present.  You can extrapolate those results into the past but then all you have is an extrapolation - not a fact.  There are limits beyond which one cannot safely extrapolate and while I can’t tell you exactly what those limits are (I’m not a statistician) I can assure you that extrapolating for much more than about twice the period during which measurements were taken is unsafe.  We’ve measured radioactive decay rates for about 100 years and yet we are continually asked to accept extrapolations that go back to beyond about 7 orders of magnitude.  That is way, way beyond safe.

Hi Janice

No problem with much of what you say, and I’ve never been much of a fan of the Documentary Hypothesis.  In fact, whenever I read any kind of literary criticism which asserts with bold confidence that something ‘must’ have been written by so and so or that it ‘couldn’t’ possibly have been written by someone else, I am singularly unimpressed.  So much of this stuff is guesswork.

But re the EE my very simple point is this: If it was written in the 7th century BC then I accept that Genesis pre-dates it.  But if conclusive evidence came to light that the EE was first written/told, let’s say, around 3,000BC (a purely random figure for the sake of my argument) then this would not dint my confidence in the reliability of the Genesis creation accounts one little bit.  Indeed, even if some kind of literary dependence could be convincingly demonstrated, I would still understand the Genesis accounts to be God’s word written, completely true, and my final authority for understanding creation and the relationship of this world to God as its creator.

On a slightly minor point, I think you’ve overstated your case when you assert that “science cannot investigate the past”.  I suppose that if one defines science very narrowly, in terms of repeatedly testable hypotheses, then yes, this is true.  But geologists, palaeontologists, and the like would (not unreasonably) consider themselves engaged in scientific enquiry, and they certainly investigate the past.  What they can’t do is provide us with certainty about the past.  If that’s your point, we’re in agreement.

Bob

MB wrote:

Genesis 1 is connected to the chronologies. It cannot be separated, as “admitted” by JD.

Actually based on the toledoth structure, it could be separated.

I should really some time take a bigger look at the other creation accounts in scripture, which don’t have the EE comparisons.

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.

I’d have to agree with your first two statements, though I’m willing to be convinced that Gen 1 really isn’t trying to tell what happened, but so far noone’s come close. The only argument I’ve seen is that it’s primary purpose is to give us the reasons for creation and it’s secondary purpose is to correct pagan myths. Noone (that I’ve seen) has given any reason why it’s tertiary purpose can’t be to tell the history of creation.

Owen, you continue to say that apparent age would make God a liar, and I can only conclude that you value our observations of the world higher than God’s revelation about the world. Can we take it back to scripture? Do you know of any passage that says if God tells us about something, that he will never make it appear otherwise?

The fact is the minute you step outside the Bible to gather evidence as to how old the earth is, and how the vast array of critters developed you end up with
1) an old earth
2) Evolution.

Excepting say… radiocarbon in diamonds and the like. ;)

On a slightly minor point, I think you’ve overstated your case when you assert that “science cannot investigate the past”.  I suppose that if one defines science very narrowly, in terms of repeatedly testable hypotheses, then yes, this is true.  But geologists, palaeontologists, and the like would (not unreasonably) consider themselves engaged in scientific enquiry, and they certainly investigate the past.  What they can’t do is provide us with certainty about the past.  If that’s your point, we’re in agreement.

We need a new word for ‘science’ that doesn’t use the scientific method.

Dannii Willis - 08 July 2008 01:57 AM

We need a new word for ‘science’ that doesn’t use the scientific method.

I like that suggestion Dannii. Words are very powerful as you know, and precisely defined terms would help further the discussion. Science seems to be a vague term in popular usage but the heart of the modern science involves a discovery process using the scientific method. A lot of what we call science (eg the scientific method itself) is metaphysics and is not actually provable by science.

If the scientific method is not used by ‘science’ and replaced by assumptions and speculation then there is the possibility of error in any results made.