A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[David Lamb]

The light from the sun, moon and stars would shine upon the earth when the water was separated and the dry land appeared.

According to Genesis 1, the sun, moon and stars were created and gave light on Day 4. The light that God created on Day 1 must have been from a different source, and the bible doesn't tell us what the source was. Perhaps it came directly from God Himself, After all, we read in the New Testament:

“This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.” (1Jo 1:5 NKJV)

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

According to Genesis 1, the sun, moon and stars were created and gave light on Day 4. The light that God created on Day 1 must have been from a different source, and the bible doesn't tell us what the source was.

A question worth considering: Is it even talking about photons?

 

[EarlyActs]

The ancients did not understand that the light of day came from the sun - which is completely understandable since the light of dawn appears before the sun appears on the horizon and dusk remains after the sun goes down. The language in Genesis 1 is consistent with ancient beliefs about the cosmos.

You are post dating the material, so that it reads like later people thought. Tell us the custody of the material.

There is nothing mythic in Gen 1.

 

[EarlyActs]

According to Genesis 1, the sun, moon and stars were created and gave light on Day 4. The light that God created on Day 1 must have been from a different source, and the bible doesn't tell us what the source was. Perhaps it came directly from God Himself, After all, we read in the New Testament:

“This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.” (1Jo 1:5 NKJV)

Get out of English and deal with the Hebrew, through transliteration. There is one on my journals fall issue, just out, but I’m not allowed to mention the name.

The expression Heaven and earth is actually a limit to refer to the local moving objects. God made the distant stars too but not the same way nor purpose.

 

[EarlyActs]

A question worth considering: Is it even talking about photons?

Notice the utter darkness before Day 1 and then the arrival of enough light to mark a 24 hr period. It is the arrival of distant starlight.

 

[EarlyActs]

In reference to the 'principle of first mention', we see in the first mention of 'day', it not only mentions 'day' but also defines it, 'day = evening and morning'. There is no way you can squeeze millions of years out of 7 evenings or mornings. TE is a matter of compromising liberals trying to have 'intellectual respectability'.

That term provides a timestamp, but there are others in vs2+. Several things show a duration in them.

 

[EarlyActs]

In the text, God is ordering Creation and in doing so He separated waters above from waters below, and water and land.



What do you mean by 'local system'?
In ancient cosmology, there was a solid dome above the land on which the sun, moon and stars moved. The language of Genesis 1 is consistent with this. Again God was not trying to correct their 'science', He was correcting their theology.



Why do you assume a modern idea of what 'stretching out' means? Why are you trying to fit modern science ideas into ancient cosmology?

Science vs theology
That would depend on custody of the material. What do you think that chain of preservation is?

The text stays in the ordinary realm of things, except the brooding of the Spirit. Compare Ps 104. The science and theology are united.

Boorsten shows that the ancient distinction was actually between moving and static objects, making Gen 1 scientific.

I believe you are imposing 19th cent naturalism on the custody of the text so that its concepts are from Egypt about 2000 bc. This violates the custody, the preservation. Joseph insured the dismissal of Egyptian influences by preserving what Adam was told some 2000 years earlier.

I have much more in my journal ; the fall issue just out, but I’m not allowed to name it here.

 

[EarlyActs]

FULL DISCLOSURE: As a Christian, I'm an old-earth creationist who accepts the evolutionary patterns of natural history while affirming and defending the biblical orthodoxy of redemptive history, including the belief that Adam and Eve were real people who lived roughly 6,000 years ago.

Why do people use evolution to argue against theism, or the idea of a creator, or design in the universe?

Invariably, people who argue that way do not understand either evolutionary science or Christian theology—or both. If you spend any amount of time arguing these issues with them, that truth will inevitably be borne out. There is nothing about evolutionary science that necessarily undermines or even challenges either theism or intelligent design. And, apart from the issue of Adam and Eve, I would say it doesn't pose any real threat to creationism generally, either. (However, it does flatly contradict young-earth creationism specifically, as do the facts of many other sciences.)

And it only poses a problem for the biblical narrative of Adam and Eve if they are held to be the first humans. If they existed as real people around 6,000 years ago but were not the first humans, there is no longer any conflict with evolutionary science.

The time frame of creation-week utterly conflicts with conventional evolution, as does the immediate maturity of all created things on days 4-6. Somehow biological life was inherently attached to time by the 19th century mind, which conflicts with Biblical usage. They also believed the mulattos could not produce children.

There is some time before Day 1 but it is lifeless. I am far more able to assert lifelessness than able to narrow down time before Day 1.

I’m not allowed to mention my journal by name but the Fall issue is now out.

2 Peter 3 also tells us that creation referred to the forming of our surface , like pottery , rather than the older distant universe. That surface is scoured again in the cataclysm. But all will be consumed by fire at the last day.

The expression Heaven and earth is local; it is not about the distant objects. The total darkness of 1:2 is local. That fact provides a timestamp for the arrival of starlight at earth on Day 1, to be worked out by celestial mechanics.

 

[Sereni-tea]

I believe you are imposing 19th cent naturalism on the custody of the text so that its concepts are from Egypt about 2000 bc. This violates the custody, the preservation. Joseph insured the dismissal of Egyptian influences by preserving what Adam was told some 2000 years earlier.

I believe that Genesis 1 was a polemic against the creation accounts of Israel's neighbours. Moses just brought them out of 400 years of captivity in Egypt. Genesis 1 shows Yahweh as the Creator of all things, and Ruler over all things. He created through His powerful Word, and not through some battle with another deity. Humanity is the pinnacle of Yahweh's creation, to rule and subdue, not to do the bidding of the gods.

What evidence do you have for such a "chain of custody"?

 

[EarlyActs]

A poor understanding of the Hebrew literary and cultural context of Genesis 1 has led to Christians adopting erroneous views of what the Bible does, and doesn't say, especially in regards to science and creation. Many have been taught that a particular position is what they must accept, otherwise they are destroying the authority of Scripture. This is not only foolish, but damaging, and many have left the church because of it, or won't even consider Christianity because they see it as ignorant and foolish. In light of this, it is imperative that we make sure that our understanding is as accurate otherwise we do not honour God.

Many educated and respected Christians hold a variety of views on Creation and we could learn a lot from each other, if we are willing to listen.


Personnaly, I think trying to equate any Hebrew term or phrase as relating to modern ideas of science is not particularly fruitful. I believe that God communicated to the ancient Hebrews their language and culture so that they would understand His message. I do not believe He was interested in correcting their 'science', only their theology. We see this in many places in the Bible, not just in Genesis 1. To try to read modern scientific ideas into the text will distort what the text is actually saying.



Darkness and deep water were symbols of chaos to the ancients and is quite common in other ancient near easter creation accounts. I don't think it has anything to do with lack of starlight. But I do think the passage is quite clear about land covered by water as in verse 9 we have dry land appearing as God separates the water from the land.

Don’t you see the problem that surfaces in your last line? You should have turned it (the submergence) into ancient symbolism. Instead you agreed that there is an ordinary meaning there.

There is but one extraordinary line in the narrative —the Spirit’s hovering/brooding.

 

[Sereni-tea]

You are post dating the material, so that it reads like later people thought. Tell us the custody of the material.

There is nothing mythic in Gen 1.

The traditional view is that Moses wrote Genesis and I see no problem with that.

 

[EarlyActs]

I believe that Genesis 1 was a polemic against the creation accounts of Israel's neighbours. Moses just brought them out of 400 years of captivity in Egypt. Genesis 1 shows Yahweh as the Creator of all things, and Ruler over all things. He created through His powerful Word, and not through some battle with another deity. Humanity is the pinnacle of Yahweh's creation, to rule and subdue, not to do the bidding of the gods.

What evidence do you have for such a "chain of custody"?

The chain is verbal recitation. Nothing is written until Joseph.

Working backwards from Abraham, there is the Terah family, after Noah, after Adam. That is the custody. As I recall there is 168 years after Adam’s death covered by Noah. It is a fairly tight custody that is established before Egyptian categories.

See Cassuto and Malone. I can’t name my journal but there is more there.

 

[EarlyActs]

The traditional view is that Moses wrote Genesis and I see no problem with that.

See Malone’s doc on Joseph and Cassuto on verbal transmission. Cassuto was buried by modern scholarship for decades.

You may have noticed from the text itself that Moses was a child when all of Genesis was a wrap. He did not imagine the material of Genesis; it has a custody.

The fact of Joseph’s creation of an alphabet busts all 19th century JEPD theories about Genesis. The 19th C—JEPD school wants authorship late, even later than Moses. And the exodus event to be later or just ‘go away.’

 

[Sereni-tea]

Don’t you see the problem that surfaces in your last line? You should have turned it (the submergence) into ancient symbolism. Instead you agreed that there is an ordinary meaning there.

There is but one extraordinary line in the narrative —the Spirit’s hovering/brooding.

The whole passage has an incredible literary structure. The surface narrative is consistent with ancient near eastern cosmology. We see in the narrative God separating out and ordering creation to suit His purposes. But the literary context screams out to the reader to look below the surface narrative to the underlying message. Or do you think the many literary devices the author used was just window dressing?

 

[Sereni-tea]

The chain is verbal recitation. Nothing is written until Joseph.

Working backwards from Abraham, there is the Terah family, after Noah, after Adam. That is the custody. As I recall there is 168 years after Adam’s death covered by Noah. It is a fairly tight custody that is established before Egyptian categories.

See Cassuto and Malone. I can’t name my journal but there is more there.

So there is nothing in Scripture to suggest such an idea then?

 

[David Lamb]

A question worth considering: Is it even talking about photons?

I've no idea, because Genesis doesn't say.

 

[Sereni-tea]

See Malone’s doc on Joseph and Cassuto on verbal transmission. Cassuto was buried by modern scholarship for decades.

You may have noticed from the text itself that Moses was a child when all of Genesis was a wrap. He did not imagine the material of Genesis; it has a custody.

The fact of Joseph’s creation of an alphabet busts all 19th century JEPD theories about Genesis. The 19th C—JEPD school wants authorship late, even later than Moses. And the exodus event to be later or just ‘go away.’

Joseph created an alphabet? And again what is the evidence for this? And don't refer me to some scholar - tell me in your own words.

As I said, the traditional view is that Moses wrote the Genesis and I see no problem with that. Moses was not born until 400 years after the end of Genesis. But that doesn't mean he didn't write it. It's not like it was a live commentary of the events.

 

[EarlyActs]

To all: please help me locate a celestial
Mechanics fact: The distance from the ‘center’ of the BB to our system immediately after the BB event, in conventional understanding.

 

[EarlyActs]

The whole passage has an incredible literary structure. The surface narrative is consistent with ancient near eastern cosmology. We see in the narrative God separating out and ordering creation to suit His purposes. But the literary context screams out to the reader to look below the surface narrative to the underlying message. Or do you think the many literary devices the author used was just window dressing?

The underlying message is simply that he is owner. It is not complicated nor does it conflict with ordinary statement. The huge difference with what Egyptians thought later is the displacement of Ra.

 

[EarlyActs]

So there is nothing in Scripture to suggest such an idea then?

Nothing in the text suggests Moses wrote Genesis. God told Adam what happened and it was verbally transmitted until Joseph.