A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[EarlyActs]

EarlyActs said:
Genesis does not align well with a personal and kingly God objective to nature. How could you miss that?

You're right! I'm not sure what happened here.

It aligns well with it, and Egyptian theology does not. As you may know 'young Germany' was incensed with Judaism for its objective god; a god who was not smoothly part of nature. 'Young Germany' is proto-Nazism.

 

[EarlyActs]

I don't get the break down in understanding Lewis, but this has happened twice. You see, there are comments by Lewis in the 1950s, even later, that show that he was completely aware of the revisionism of German criticism, but also that it was collapsing.

In my most recent quote, he is showing that regardless of its failure, its views would be popular for some time in journals and in theological colleges.

 

[EarlyActs]

I can't imagine what the hang up about viewing Malone is. Other than you might be astonished.

The fraud of burying Cassuto affects all work in the past generation at Oxford, at U Toronto, at Hebrew U Tel Aviv, all of which were visited about the issue.

 

[EarlyActs]

While we are on the subject of Egyptian theology, it seems like a reminder is in place: Moses confronted Egyptian theology in the pre-Passover plagues. So why doesn't this behind the scenes Egyptian theology show there? Is even more being re-written than I imagined? Somehow there is all this evidence that doesn't even show in the LXX, but it is a dominant filter through which the Bible is to be read.

The upshot of sticking to the recitation-custody is that the early material is a reliable record and first-hand. Even the custody is reliable. This is self-evident. If I understand you correctly, you are relying on an 'inspiration' over 2000 years later as to what happened, even when there is a mostly calculable custody.

To show how prone we are to remain in our own familiar worlds, I am now a year into appealing to any US apologetics organization I can find as to why the 1st century destruction of Israel is not the leading apologetics tool, merely on the grounds of the volume of evidence. The reason is a view of Israel that completely shifts the narrative away from what the NT is actually saying. Someone, somewhere has acted with nearly mass-media force to prevent there being any connection between the text (accounts of Jesus) and a fairly detailed prediction of what would happen to Judaism's zealots a few decades later (Lk 23:28). It's mind-boggling what has happened (ie the manipulation of history).

 

[EarlyActs]

Thought not specifically about the previous post, I wrote this summary of my view yesterday:

My view is that the ‘spreading out’ of the lifeless distant stars (kavov) was shortly prior to earth’s local creation week. It’s energy dissipated rapidly and the forms created were random. One of those was the earthen material which was covered with water. Locally, there was not even starlight reflecting on earth, but it arrived on Day 1; a star, likely of Orion, marked the 1st day-period. The narrative is concerned with the shama or local objects which is soon fused with raqia, the whole ensemble from earth’s sky containing birds to a few moving stars which communicate to mankind, not the distant worlds. Gen 1’s narrative only mentions the distant kavov as an aside; and this matches 2 Peter 3: the universe was there ‘of old,’ but the earth was formed like pottery into the pre-cataclysm object, through water and out of it.

 

[Sereni-tea]

I don't have the time right now to go through all your posts and try to make sense of it all, so let me just make clear what my position is, as I think you are arguing against beliefs I do not hold.

I believe that the text of Genesis 1-11 was written to an ancient near eastern audience. It was written so that it would communicate theological truths in a way that they would understand. Therefore, the cosmology (the ideas about the origin of the universe) was communicated in a language and culture they were familiar with. It did not contain advanced 'scientific' knowledge. To try to fit modern ideas into the text (whether young or old creationist ideas) is a mistake.

In one sense, it doesn't matter where the source material came from, what is important is the way in which that material was presented in the final written text. This context of the written text is important as it helps us understand the message the author was trying to convey. In my posts I am talking about what the text actually says and how it says it, not where it came from or how it came to be in the Bible. Is it possible that the source came from Adam? Sure, it's possible, but it's not necessary and it certainly isn't self-evident. But there is no evidence that this is the case or you would have presented it.

The text itself was not written in Adam's day, nor Noah's day. It was written to the ancient Israelites. So the cultural context of the text is ancient Israel. Even if the source material came from Adam, it still possesses an ancient near eastern cultural context becuase that is the group of people it was communicating with.

I hope you can see the distinction between source material and the context of the written text. I am interested in the latter and you seem focused on the former.

 

[EarlyActs]

A copy of Sarfati THE GENESIS ACCOUNT came. I found this on p59-60:

"...it is far from obvious from the text that the text is intended as an explicit polemic--as opposed to being polemical as the truth is always against falsehood. Cassuto stated:

The language is tranquil, undisturbed by polemic or dispute; the controversial note is heard indirectly, as it were, through the deliberate, quite utterances of Scripture. (A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, p7, 1961)"

"...Even those who think it is a polemic agree that the book is mainly didactic... One example is John Walton, professor of OT at Wheaton College, long known for a weak stand on Genesis."

Genesis is "nothing like Longman's (Biblical Studies, Westmont, Santa Barbara, CA) explanation" that Genesis belongs with various confrontive psalms (Ps 74).

"...mankind was originally monotheistic, and only later degenerated into idolatrous pantheism. The Austrian linguist W. Schmidt (b. 1868)...showed the original belief was monotheism... one supreme god who was a good creator... THE ORIGIN OF THE GOD IDEA, 12 Vols., 1912-1954."

 

[Sereni-tea]

A copy of Sarfati THE GENESIS ACCOUNT came. I found this on p59-60:

"...it is far from obvious from the text that the text is intended as an explicit polemic--as opposed to being polemical as the truth is always against falsehood.

So it's not a polemic but it is polemical?

Cassuto stated:

The language is tranquil, undisturbed by polemic or dispute; the controversial note is heard indirectly, as it were, through the deliberate, quite utterances of Scripture. (A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, p7, 1961)"

The 'tranquility' of the text is exactly what stands in stark contrast to the creation stories of Israel's neighbours. Far from refuting the claims of it being polemical, I would say that it supports the idea.

"...Even those who think it is a polemic agree that the book is mainly didactic... One example is John Walton, professor of OT at Wheaton College, long known for a weak stand on Genesis."

Not sure what 'weak stand' means. Walton makes his position very clear.

Genesis is "nothing like Longman's (Biblical Studies, Westmont, Santa Barbara, CA) explanation" that Genesis belongs with various confrontive psalms (Ps 74).

"...mankind was originally monotheistic, and only later degenerated into idolatrous pantheism. The Austrian linguist W. Schmidt (b. 1868)...showed the original belief was monotheism... one supreme god who was a good creator... THE ORIGIN OF THE GOD IDEA, 12 Vols., 1912-1954."

Sarfati is a young earth creationist. What you have quoted above shows his opinion only and does not provide any evidence to support it. It also seems he has no understanding of what a polemic is.
Do you blindly accept Sarfati's opinions or are you going to investigate it for yourself? Have you compared Genesis 1 with other ANE creation myths? Have you noticed the similaries and the differences?