Six-Day Creation: Is it worth the battle?
- Thread starter Reformed Covenanter
- Start date
- Status
and 
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Ben, Congratulations on having read all the way through the thread. 
Since PuritanSailor dealt with first part of your reply about science and miracles (and I also disagree that natural explanations should automatically be preferred to supernatural: there are no doubt 'natural' explanations for why a bunch of people would claim that Jesus rose from the dead, for instance), I'll just respond to this:
This seems to demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of the nature of mathematical proof, which GreenBaggins referenced. Actually all the theories you cited are only theories -- none of them have been 'proven'. We may suddenly find new data tomorrow to upset our most basic understanding of many of these things. Science cannot speak authoritatively as regards absolute proof, and it's authority about things not immediately observable -- because there is so much data that it cannot take into account -- is simply non-existent. Some of the most sophisticated atheistic philosophers -- like Bertrand Russell, who was also a mathematician -- speak with far less certainty about these things than you do, because they understood the philosophical limitations and the nature of scientific knowledge. In fact, you are finding Russell, Owen Barfield and such minds laughable in finding the theoretic nature of evolution something of a joke.
As regards the 'evidence' that exists for evolution, and the idea that theories in the scientific world are somehow 'more prestigious' (by which you seem to mean even better established? or are they merely more respected-- because those are two different things) than facts, I am not sure how one could think this. A model is a theoretical construct human minds have come up with to account for data, and other theories. This doesn't mean there is 'evidence' for the construct. It means the construct has been created to fit theories and data (& the 'evidence' of being able to use a theory predictively is something that may change with further data or that other theories could account for). The same data that exists is used in creation science constructs as well -- so I might just as easily say that the evidence supports creation science (indeed I believe it does, but this is not on the authority of science. It is on the authority of God's word).
Many of the opinions expressed on this thread in favor of six day creation represent a more considered, more widely and well read position of more immediate inquiry in scientific and philosophical fields than what you seem to demonstrate so far in your answering statements; and you have admitted that you aren't much acquainted with the grammatical, textual issues. If you disregard the text in a rush to argue the authority of 'respectable' scientific theories then you are indeed subordinating the infallible, divine, absolute nature of Scripture to a fallible human tool. This is what Poimen didn't want propogated on the board, not because we are afraid of facts or of science, but because we are afraid of the consequences to us and to others of undermining the authority of the text -- against what we confess about Scripture. All the best, Ben.
Since PuritanSailor dealt with first part of your reply about science and miracles (and I also disagree that natural explanations should automatically be preferred to supernatural: there are no doubt 'natural' explanations for why a bunch of people would claim that Jesus rose from the dead, for instance), I'll just respond to this:This seems to demonstrate a basic misunderstanding of the nature of mathematical proof, which GreenBaggins referenced. Actually all the theories you cited are only theories -- none of them have been 'proven'. We may suddenly find new data tomorrow to upset our most basic understanding of many of these things. Science cannot speak authoritatively as regards absolute proof, and it's authority about things not immediately observable -- because there is so much data that it cannot take into account -- is simply non-existent. Some of the most sophisticated atheistic philosophers -- like Bertrand Russell, who was also a mathematician -- speak with far less certainty about these things than you do, because they understood the philosophical limitations and the nature of scientific knowledge. In fact, you are finding Russell, Owen Barfield and such minds laughable in finding the theoretic nature of evolution something of a joke.
As regards the 'evidence' that exists for evolution, and the idea that theories in the scientific world are somehow 'more prestigious' (by which you seem to mean even better established? or are they merely more respected-- because those are two different things) than facts, I am not sure how one could think this. A model is a theoretical construct human minds have come up with to account for data, and other theories. This doesn't mean there is 'evidence' for the construct. It means the construct has been created to fit theories and data (& the 'evidence' of being able to use a theory predictively is something that may change with further data or that other theories could account for). The same data that exists is used in creation science constructs as well -- so I might just as easily say that the evidence supports creation science (indeed I believe it does, but this is not on the authority of science. It is on the authority of God's word).
Many of the opinions expressed on this thread in favor of six day creation represent a more considered, more widely and well read position of more immediate inquiry in scientific and philosophical fields than what you seem to demonstrate so far in your answering statements; and you have admitted that you aren't much acquainted with the grammatical, textual issues. If you disregard the text in a rush to argue the authority of 'respectable' scientific theories then you are indeed subordinating the infallible, divine, absolute nature of Scripture to a fallible human tool. This is what Poimen didn't want propogated on the board, not because we are afraid of facts or of science, but because we are afraid of the consequences to us and to others of undermining the authority of the text -- against what we confess about Scripture. All the best, Ben.
Last edited:
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
PS. a lot of replies were posted while I was alternately listening to Corelli and typing up mine -- hope it isn't too redundant.
Exactly, our disagreement concerns the historicity of the account not the account itself.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
The problem with your argument is that the other ANE cosmogonies are actually myth not history. They were created to deceive. Thus they cannot function the same way. In many ways, as noted above by Lane, the Genesis narratives are an apologetic against those false myths about origins. That Genesis provides a cosmogeny I will not deny, but Genesis is clearly teaching us not only the origins of Israel but of all mankind.
Last edited:
The problem with your argument is that the other ANE cosmogonies are actually myth not history. They were created to deceive. Thus they cannot function the same way. In many ways, as noted above by Lane, the Genesis narratives are an apologetic against those false myths about origins. That Genesis provides a cosmogeny I will not deny, but Genesis is clearly teaching us not only the origins of Israel but of all mankind.
You are correct that we should recognise differences between various ANE cosmogonies, and you admit that Genesis provides a cosmogony. That is its genre. Once we have that established we can look to its theological message. I agree that it is polemical, indeed I see its target as both a Canaanite Baal and a Babylonian Marduk but not excluding an Egyptian target also. I see no reason why it should not be a polemical attack on all three. Now whilst it does teach the origin of Mankind, its real focus is on Israel. It is explaining to the Israelite his genesis/origin.
In short, your points do not in any way undermine what I am arguing. I am here focusing upon pointing out that Genesis provides a biblical cosmogony over and against those who deny such a thing and argue it is real history.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Just to make known, there are still some geocentrists running around
CT
Are you serious? Please elaborate when you get the chance.
Blessings!
Geocentricity
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
The problem with your argument is that the other ANE cosmogonies are actually myth not history. They were created to deceive. Thus they cannot function the same way. In many ways, as noted above by Lane, the Genesis narratives are an apologetic against those false myths about origins. That Genesis provides a cosmogeny I will not deny, but Genesis is clearly teaching us not only the origins of Israel but of all mankind.
You are correct that we should recognise differences between various ANE cosmogonies, and you admit that Genesis provides a cosmogony. That is its genre. Once we have that established we can look to its theological message. I agree that it is polemical, indeed I see its target as both a Canaanite Baal and a Babylonian Marduk but not excluding an Egyptian target also. I see no reason why it should not be a polemical attack on all three. Now whilst it does teach the origin of Mankind, its real focus is on Israel. It is explaining to the Israelite his genesis/origin.
In short, your points do not in any way undermine what I am arguing. I am here focusing upon pointing out that Genesis provides a biblical cosmogony over and against those who deny such a thing and argue it is real history.
No, it's genre is historical narrative. A cosmogony doesn't have to be mythical. It simply provides the meta-narrative for life. In this case, our cosmogony is true, and the grammar and literary style mitigates against any poetic or figurative language.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Richard, a quick question -- you have said I think a couple times that the Genesis account is a cosmogony in the form of a history, while maintaining that it is not actual history. My immediate thought as an unsophisticated housewife was, 'how deceptive'. If you admit that it is in the form of history, is there any reason (disregarding science, as you indicate that your argument is more based on the text) for denying that it is both cosmogony and actual history, other than an argument that ANE myths don't work this way? (But doesn't that argument lose some of its force if ANE myths were corrupted as they were passed down and more mythologized, mixing some remnant of truth with much error while the biblical creation account was not in this way corrupted?)
You mentioned T. S. Eliot. The first time I read his poem 'The Wasteland' I thought it was a rather incoherent, but beautiful, jumble of images and thoughts without a real ideological structure or explanation. It seemed the only sensible reading to me, not because of the genre (all the poetry I had read up to that point was coherent) but because of the poem itself. When I found out people wrote whole books assigning coherent symbologies to it, I thought they had to be falling for a hoax. When I found out he did, I thought he had to be perpetrating it. It turns out that he was. He said in an interview that it was structureless, and that he wasn't even bothering whether he understood what he was saying. See this link about the notes. Yet if we look at his other poems and the genre, we would be led to read significance and coherence into the poem that isn't there. My point is that even in literature, trying to interpret away a natural reading of a text because of other things in the same genre isn't always a sound interpretative rule?
(added: by the way I agree with Patrick that the genre is actually historical narrative that sets forth a cosmogony: but even if we were to lump it in the same genre with ANE myths and focus on the cosmogony more I don't know that it follows to stop reading the creation account as literal history.)
You mentioned T. S. Eliot. The first time I read his poem 'The Wasteland' I thought it was a rather incoherent, but beautiful, jumble of images and thoughts without a real ideological structure or explanation. It seemed the only sensible reading to me, not because of the genre (all the poetry I had read up to that point was coherent) but because of the poem itself. When I found out people wrote whole books assigning coherent symbologies to it, I thought they had to be falling for a hoax. When I found out he did, I thought he had to be perpetrating it. It turns out that he was. He said in an interview that it was structureless, and that he wasn't even bothering whether he understood what he was saying. See this link about the notes. Yet if we look at his other poems and the genre, we would be led to read significance and coherence into the poem that isn't there. My point is that even in literature, trying to interpret away a natural reading of a text because of other things in the same genre isn't always a sound interpretative rule?
(added: by the way I agree with Patrick that the genre is actually historical narrative that sets forth a cosmogony: but even if we were to lump it in the same genre with ANE myths and focus on the cosmogony more I don't know that it follows to stop reading the creation account as literal history.)
Last edited:
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
The problem with your argument is that the other ANE cosmogonies are actually myth not history. They were created to deceive. Thus they cannot function the same way. In many ways, as noted above by Lane, the Genesis narratives are an apologetic against those false myths about origins. That Genesis provides a cosmogeny I will not deny, but Genesis is clearly teaching us not only the origins of Israel but of all mankind.
You are correct that we should recognise differences between various ANE cosmogonies, and you admit that Genesis provides a cosmogony. That is its genre. Once we have that established we can look to its theological message. I agree that it is polemical, indeed I see its target as both a Canaanite Baal and a Babylonian Marduk but not excluding an Egyptian target also. I see no reason why it should not be a polemical attack on all three. Now whilst it does teach the origin of Mankind, its real focus is on Israel. It is explaining to the Israelite his genesis/origin.
In short, your points do not in any way undermine what I am arguing. I am here focusing upon pointing out that Genesis provides a biblical cosmogony over and against those who deny such a thing and argue it is real history.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/genesis_weeks.pdf
And your point is what?
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
It is an article concerning ANE, as well as other related topics, and their relationship to the early chapters of Genesis. It is written by an expert in the Genre and a YECer. I was under the impression that such was the subtopic of the thread. If I was mistaken that such was the discussion then you can keep up your replies to PuritanSailor.
CT
It was just that the article does not deal with what I am arguing hence my confusion. Incidently, our understanding of the Psalms has been greatly enhanced by our understanding of ANE mythology.
Two good articles I would commend to you are:
Smick, E. B. (1982) “Mythopoetic Language in the Psalms”, Westminster Theological Journal. 44 pp. 88-98.
Smick, E. B. (1978) "Another Look at the Mythological Elements in the Book of Job", Westminster Theological Journal. 40(2) pp. 213-28.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
I thought your point was to read the Creation story as something less than history based on your views of ANE cosmology etc. If it is not that, then it is irrelevant to the conversation.
CT
I am saying that the Creation story is an ANE cosmology and should therefore not be understood as literal history. Its message is theological not historical.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Then the reason for posting the article stands. If you wish to read it, fine; if not that is also fine.
CT
Having read the article, I still say it has nothing to with what I am arguing. The only mildly relevant bit is his argument against the view that "the most plausible explanation for the religion of Israel derives it by a process of ideological evolution from Israel’s neighbours" but I am not doing that. The other slightly relevant thing is his point that "the necessity of interpreting them against the Near Eastern cultural background is removed" but this is simply wrong. As I noted before, there is mythopoetic language throughout the OT.
His point is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Indeed, but there are different types (or forms) of Scripture. Poetry needs to be interpreted as poetry, history as history, prophesy as prophesy and cosmogony as cosmogony. That is where his point fails. The literary form sets the context, and we all know that sound exegesis demands we take into account the context.
a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Richard -- you have said earlier that the cosmogony is 'in the form of history' -- does not history then constitute some part of the literary form and context? You make a dichotomy between theology and history, but we don't make such a dichotomy about the resurrection: we affirm that the doctrine is tied into the historicity. Can you argue that those who do not make such a dichotomy but hold that the theology/cosmogony are inherent in the historicity of the narrative are being unfaithful to the text?
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Here you show that it is relevant, but that you just disagree.
"These last two examples raise another set of problems. When it is said that God employed symbols common in that day is it meant that both the symbol and what is symbolized were already known or that only the symbol was known with a completely different connotation? The distinction is an important one. For this argument to be convincing the former must be the case. Otherwise one is saying that God gave the symbol a completely new meaning. And if he did that we are no longer dealing with symbols common at the time, but with new symbols. Then the necessity of interpreting them against the Near Eastern cultural background is removed. Whether there is any ultimate relationship” between biblical and Babylonian accounts as we now have them they belong to different ideological worlds. The symbols are not the same because the ideology is different. The goddess Tiamat defeated in a war by the god Marduk, if she may be called a ‘symbol’; must be seen as a symbol within the context of Babylonian polytheism whereas the creation of heaven and earth belongs within the context of biblical thought. It is meaningless to say that God used the same symbol but changed its meaning. It is then no longer the same symbol."
The onus is on you to demonstrate that not just the symbols but also what is symbolized is the same.
His point is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Indeed, but there are different types (or forms) of Scripture. Poetry needs to be interpreted as poetry, history as history, prophesy as prophesy and cosmogony as cosmogony. That is where his point fails. The literary form sets the context, and we all know that sound exegesis demands we take into account the context.
Then it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) militates against the historicity of the account due to the scriptures demanding such.
CT
Regarding Dr Sproul's understanding of creation- in his Truths We Confess, A Layman's Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith, Dr Sproul writes, p. 127
"For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possiblity. But I have now changed my mind."
After doing a great job explaining the four theological views that have arisen regarding creation, he says, p. 128
"The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days."
So, this was helpful for me in understanding the views, firming up my own assumption that God did creation in six days like today, yet treating fairly those who thought maybe a day was not exactly the same length or was used symbolically.
Now, thanks to this, I can confidently say the Westminster Confession expresses the literal days view and that anyone who does not believe that would need to take an "exception," at least.
"For most of my teaching career, I considered the framework hypothesis to be a possiblity. But I have now changed my mind."
After doing a great job explaining the four theological views that have arisen regarding creation, he says, p. 128
"The confession makes it a point of faith that God created the world in the space of six days."
So, this was helpful for me in understanding the views, firming up my own assumption that God did creation in six days like today, yet treating fairly those who thought maybe a day was not exactly the same length or was used symbolically.
Now, thanks to this, I can confidently say the Westminster Confession expresses the literal days view and that anyone who does not believe that would need to take an "exception," at least.
This was really my point by saying he was not criticising what I was saying, I mean what are you going on about really? My point is that the similarity is simply that both are cosmogonies. There are huge differences in the detail and these reflect major theological differences between Yahwehism and the other ANE religions.
One could argue the very opposite, i.e. it is up to you to demonstrate that the form (cosmogony) allows for the account's historicity. There is no reason to believe it is actual history rather the form, as a cosmogony, necessitates our understanding it to be no more than myth (in the technical sense of the word).
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
If the difference are that vast (and they are) then what keeps one from allowing one to be portraying real history vs. the others not?
But if we have already determined that we allow scripture to interpret scripture, then it is up to you to show that scripture does not allow history to be portrayed when giving a cosmogony?
Put into other words, who defines the parameters of a cosmogony? God or the heathens?
CT
Last edited:
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
Have you heard the version that God selected a Cro-Magnon man, gave him a soul, and thus created Adam? 
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
For most of my preaching years (including those since moving out of the pastorate), I waffled on the subject of Gen 1 (typical Fuller grad I guess: "on the one hand, but on the other hand"). I always argued, along with former CT editor, Kenneth Kantzer, that orthodox theology required only a belief in creation ex nihilo and a literal Adam and Eve. The mechanism of creation and the duration were left to scientific inquiry, I thought. Furthermore, I rather enjoyed Hugh Ross' progressive creationism and the ability to have my cake and eat it too, insofar as I could oppose naturalistic Darwinism without looking like a flat-earth luddite. 13.8 billion years? Sounds OK by me, etc.
In more recent years, dissatisfaction with the hermeneutical fruit of this way of handling the Bible when applied to a whole range of contemporary issues (e.g., women in the church, homosexuality, etc.), prompted me to return ad fontes, to the sources. A review of the exegetical arguments from people like Kelly, a few incidental comments by R.C. Sproul on the reasons for his change of mind, Al Mohler's support for YEC, and some material by Answers in Genesis (written by PhDs in various fields of astrophysics, molecular biology, geology, and the like), led me to reverse course on this subject as well.
Can one make a plausible case for an old earth, such that it is compatible with some forms of evolution (albeit not a purely naturalistic one)? Sure. But, if you read Bob Gundry on Matthew, he makes a plausible case for the genre allowing Matthew to invent the star and the magi and add unrelated women to the genealogy of Jesus. Several progressive evangelical writers make a plausible case for accepting homosexual marriage and ordinations. People in the FV make a very plausible case for their form of "now you have it, now you don't" salvation, election, and reprobation. And, people much brighter than I make a plausible case EVERY day for all manner of mutually exclusive eschatological schema.
I am convinvced . . .
1. . . . that all forms of evolution are incompatible with orthodox Christianity, despite the plausible cases made by educated adherents.
2. . . . that the most faithful interpretation of the biblical record is the so-called straight-forward one of Genesis 1-11.
3. . . . that the unintended (and intended) fruit of Darwin's grand idea has been the most toxic and corrosive on the confidence of ordinary people in the word of God and the God of the word.
4. . . . that as a matter of historical accuracy and honest handling of the sources from the 17th century, the confessions safeguard us on this subject such that it would be necessarily unconfessional to advocate views that came to be known as "evolution" in the 19th century.
5. . . . that as laudible as it is to want to protect the scandal of the Gospel from becoming the scandal of the ignorant fundys, efforts by people like Francis Collins to hold to a form of evangelicalism AND theistic evolution will ultimately fail. And, the failure will result in even greater disbelief in the authority of the Bible.
And, more sadly (cf. James 3), I repent of my own unfaithfulness to my ordination vows. Rather than declaring the whole counsel of God and not trimming it to cater to the whims of the day, I listened to my college and seminary profs and advocated a cavilier approach to God's word, full of scholarly equivocations and justifications. I contributed unintentionally, yet guiltily, to planting all kinds of bitter seeds that may germinate and lead others astray in other issues having little to do with the first chapters of Genesis. Or, perhaps there is an organic connection. Changing attitudes toward male-female relationships and issues of homo eroticism follow closely on the heels of the Darwinian revolution. And, as a matter of fact, they are also dealt with in Genesis 1-3!
In more recent years, dissatisfaction with the hermeneutical fruit of this way of handling the Bible when applied to a whole range of contemporary issues (e.g., women in the church, homosexuality, etc.), prompted me to return ad fontes, to the sources. A review of the exegetical arguments from people like Kelly, a few incidental comments by R.C. Sproul on the reasons for his change of mind, Al Mohler's support for YEC, and some material by Answers in Genesis (written by PhDs in various fields of astrophysics, molecular biology, geology, and the like), led me to reverse course on this subject as well.
Can one make a plausible case for an old earth, such that it is compatible with some forms of evolution (albeit not a purely naturalistic one)? Sure. But, if you read Bob Gundry on Matthew, he makes a plausible case for the genre allowing Matthew to invent the star and the magi and add unrelated women to the genealogy of Jesus. Several progressive evangelical writers make a plausible case for accepting homosexual marriage and ordinations. People in the FV make a very plausible case for their form of "now you have it, now you don't" salvation, election, and reprobation. And, people much brighter than I make a plausible case EVERY day for all manner of mutually exclusive eschatological schema.
I am convinvced . . .
1. . . . that all forms of evolution are incompatible with orthodox Christianity, despite the plausible cases made by educated adherents.
2. . . . that the most faithful interpretation of the biblical record is the so-called straight-forward one of Genesis 1-11.
3. . . . that the unintended (and intended) fruit of Darwin's grand idea has been the most toxic and corrosive on the confidence of ordinary people in the word of God and the God of the word.
4. . . . that as a matter of historical accuracy and honest handling of the sources from the 17th century, the confessions safeguard us on this subject such that it would be necessarily unconfessional to advocate views that came to be known as "evolution" in the 19th century.
5. . . . that as laudible as it is to want to protect the scandal of the Gospel from becoming the scandal of the ignorant fundys, efforts by people like Francis Collins to hold to a form of evangelicalism AND theistic evolution will ultimately fail. And, the failure will result in even greater disbelief in the authority of the Bible.
And, more sadly (cf. James 3), I repent of my own unfaithfulness to my ordination vows. Rather than declaring the whole counsel of God and not trimming it to cater to the whims of the day, I listened to my college and seminary profs and advocated a cavilier approach to God's word, full of scholarly equivocations and justifications. I contributed unintentionally, yet guiltily, to planting all kinds of bitter seeds that may germinate and lead others astray in other issues having little to do with the first chapters of Genesis. Or, perhaps there is an organic connection. Changing attitudes toward male-female relationships and issues of homo eroticism follow closely on the heels of the Darwinian revolution. And, as a matter of fact, they are also dealt with in Genesis 1-3!
Last edited:
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
Darwinian evolution is bad science. Theistic evolution is bad science compounded by bad theology.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
As you can see, I'm only on page two of this discussion. This discussion interests me for several reasons. I won't bore you with them.
But I'd like to interject here (not knowing what has happened between page two and this present page, so please excuse me if I am going over again what has already been finished) that it seems to me that "morning and evening" are indeed a distinct and quite necessary reference even before the fourth day in the creation account.
For me this point changed the way I view Genesis 1. I mean, I read it as referring to a six-day creation; that hasn't changed at all. In that way you could say that I read it "literally". But I don't call that "literal" anymore, at least not in the same way that it is usually said.
When I was a cabinet-maker I described the manufacturing process to different types of people, such as clients, suppliers, backers, etc., then it became clear over time that I used a great deal of symbolic language, different types of symbolisms to different kinds of audiences, to describe what was in fact going on, whenever someone came into my shop and needed to or wanted to know. I was describing something very real and literal, but I had to resort to creative language to better describe the whole process. For example, the idea of "concept to finished product" meant different things to different people, depending on their starting point and their finishing point. A customer's starting and finishing points are different than a banker's starting and finishing point, both of which are again different than a supplier's. To talk about "door openings" when as yet there were no doors, and to have them already fitting to the finest degree on cabinets before the cabinets have even been made, was one very important step in the process of "concept to finished product". How do you relate that to these different types of interested people?
That's how I came across the "cabinet-maker's explanation" of the creation account. Gen. 1 is a very brief account of something that is beyond any proportion to anything we can know. And yet it is accurate to the nth degree. That is, it is a true account. Yes, we're going to have problems with some things, like why there is "evening and morning" on the first day when the sun and moon didn't shine to distinguish evening from morning. But not if you think of it terms of a finished product being described from concept according to the manufacturer's point of view. The sun and moon were there as much on the first day as they were on the fourth in the design and layout of the process.
The point is: the sun, moon, and stars were not accidentals, or after-thoughts, or "nice touches" that happened to pop up. In the planning stage they were already there from the point of "concept" which takes place right at the start, and is there throughout the entire process. To decribe it requires as much a description of what's really going on as well as what's conceptually going on.
And to do that in one chapter, well..., all I can say is "WOW!!!"
That is, it's not "literal" per se, but it does describe in a very conceptual and accurate and truthful way what we would nominally call the "literal" interpretation. I used to think that we had to think of the first three days in terms of sidereal days (a revolution based on position to the stars, or a fixed position in space, instead of position to the sun), but that only helped me on to the the further step of seeing the first days as conforming to the plan which included the eventual additions of the sun, moon, and stars. I now see "evening and morning" referring to 24 hr. days, even on the first day. And the problem of the fourth day dilemma doesn't bother me at all anymore.
Because cosmogonies are, by definition, not historical. The similarities are not in the detail but in the themes and the presentation of those themes. Further, the structure of the account and the theology it advocates demonstrates it is polemical over and against historical.
Whilst Scripture is to be interpret by Scripture the question you are positing is beyond the scope this rule. Furthermore, we would all recognise that Scripture was never written in an historical vacuum hence if we understand the historical context in which Scripture was written we are provided with a far richer understanding of what is said.
Example 1
"In Ps 74:12-14 the mythopoetic language about the many-headed Leviathan is historicized and used metaphorically to describe Yahweh's great victory in history, at the Red Sea." (Smick)
Example 2
"Gen 1 and Isa 27:1 present the OT view of the beginning and the end of linear history. They mark a major ideological difference between the OT and the nature cycles of Canaanite myth. On the other hand the serpent imagery is a continuity between the two which cannot be ignored. The same imagery is found in Rev 12:9 where The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Certainly this passage is telling of an historical event which will take place in space and time but few would feel it must be fulfilled by means of a literal dragon." (Smick)
I would suggest a reading of these:
HASEL, G. F. (1972) “The Significance of the Cosmology in Gen 1 in Relation to Ancient near Eastern Parallels”, Andrews University Seminary Studies. 10 pp. 1-20.
HUMMEL, C. E. (1986) “Interpreting Genesis One”, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. 38(3). pp. 175-85.
HYERS, M. C. (1984) “The Narrative Form of Genesis 1: Cosmongonic, Yes; Scientific, No”, Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation. 36(4) pp. 208-15.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
