A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[EarlyActs]

e.g. Genesis 4:17-22, 5:1-32, 10:1-32, 11:10-32, 25:12-28, 36:1-43, and 46:8-27

If grammar is askew, we as Christians are all in big trouble, as we rely on the grammatical precision of words, due to the inspiration of Scripture.

Sorry, but I didn't realize a renown mathematician was also a Hebrew scholar.

The form of narratives in Genesis is
1, section title, cp 5:1
2, pre-existing conditions. Cp ch 26 where Rebekkah is first described. Was she only beautiful that day? Was she only a virgin that day? Did she only have an uncle (an aside to the story) that day?
3, new material
4, summary.

Factor that into ch 1 and you can see why a dependent clause is often used. 'When God began creating...'

The LXX rabbis wanted to help the wider world read the Torah in widely used Greek. When they handled v2, they put the contrastive 'de' about the earth, not the continuative 'kai.' Thus: In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. Now the land was submerged out of view... That means the materials of earth, rock and water were already there...

The significance of this in the LXX is 1, it is centuries closer than we are to an 'interpretation.' 2, they are practicing rabbis, earnest to keep the faith pure.

Since you want precision in words, please find transliteration. This allows the particles of sentence to be in your language, but the vocab shows clearly. This is a huge issue in Gen 1, where the distant stars are only mentioned once as an aside. Literary comparison shows that that means they are not the topic.

 

[prism]

I don't know if gap believers meant a pause of activity, because I don't. There's also 2 places a gap could go, and I don't know which they meant. (Right after the title line, which breaks the meaning of the passage, or right after the conditions of v2, but there does not need to be a gap).

A pause of activity on whose end? The bible's or TE's? In either case it's quite a stretch going from 6,000 years (Biblical geneologies) to 2,000.000+ years (TE), a difference of 1,994,000 In that case, there are a lot of 'gaps' to fill.

 

[EarlyActs]

You are right that this is where we differ. You believe that Genesis was the original account of creation and I believe it is a polemic against the views of Israel's neighbours, correcting their theology. I also believe it is describing the God ordering creation as His cosmic temple (but that is another topic). I believe the literary structure and context supports this view.

I don't believe it is a polemic, but it acts as one by default. I believe it is an ordinary-language description. There is no 2nd dimension to it.

 

[EarlyActs]

A pause of activity on whose end? The bible's or TE's? In either case it's quite a stretch going from 6,000 years (Biblical geneologies) to 2,000.000+ years (TE), a difference of 1,994,000 In that case, there are a lot of 'gaps' to fill.

What do gap theory representatives say about their view?

 

[prism]

I know what genealogies are; I don't know what you meant to say about them.

See post #62.

 

[EarlyActs]

See post #62.

They wouldn't be talking about genealogical gaps before humans were created (unless that is the problem!). Can you start from scratch and say what you mean?

 

[EarlyActs]

I have read some of Waltke's work and his views are a long way from what you are saying here.

I'm sure CREATION AND CHAOS spoke of pre-existing conditions. And he did have us read Cassuto to be familiar. Please be specific.

 

[prism]

They wouldn't be talking about genealogical gaps before humans were created (unless that is the problem!). Can you start from scratch and say what you mean?

TEs resort to an old earth of about 2 million years, this would not accord with the biblical genealogy accounts.

 

[EarlyActs]

See post #62.

If it helps let me summarize my view which is in my quarterly journal (which I can't name here):
1, that God made a mass dispersion or detonation with random and lifeless results some time before Day 1.
2, that to set the time of Day 1 relative to that, we need to know the distance from the center of such a detonation to our system. We know that Centauri is 4 years away, and it could qualify as the thing which marked a first evening. (Is it enough, for one star to be called illumination?). What distance is there from us toward the 'center' of such a detonation.
3, the features of earth prior to Day 1 are that the solid mass (land) was submerged, and that at the location of the earth, there was utter darkness. No light had arrived that would reflect off the surface of the water. Once again, we must consider what that means in starlight mechanics. Finally the unusual reference to the Spirit is in terms of a hen brooding over its eggs. This shows duration (10--21 days by analogy).
4, creation week is far too specific and human-friendly to have been part of that detonation, but God may have moved individual objects to our system. The verb for 'place' on Day 4 is infamously the same verb about Eve putting the forbidden fruit in Adam's hand. Notice that the object placed existed elsewhere.
5, Day 1's light is distant starlight, but there is range as to what would be needed to indicate an evening started (the start of Day 2). That was the purpose of that illumination, nothing to do with food producing.
6, the frequent phrase 'heavens and earth' is meant to limit the topic to those two things. The chapter is not, therefore, about the distant stars, and the above points already showed this. In v8, we find that the 'heavens' are the firmament! Boorsten, in his history of discoveries, writes that the ancient world only distinguished between static and moving objects, a category which is in Genesis. The stem 'shama' is local, moving ones. The stem 'kavov' is distant. The 'kavov' are only mentioned once, not even in a complete sentence, just acknowledging they were also made by God. We do not hear of them again until the tally of multitudes of stars in ch 15, which of course is another proof they are not local (ie, the tally proves that).

I'm the editor of a journal which is now about 150 pages of material. I am only summarizing here. I am not allowed to name the journal.

 

[EarlyActs]

See post #62.

If it helps let me summarize my view which is in my quarterly journal (which I can't name here):
1, that God made a mass dispersion or detonation with random and lifeless results some time before Day 1.
2, that to set the time of Day 1 relative to that, we need to know the distance from the center of such a detonation to our system. We know that Centauri is 4 years away, and it could qualify as the thing which marked a first evening. (Is it enough, for one star to be called illumination?). What distance is there from us toward the 'center' of such a detonation.
3, the features of earth prior to Day 1 are that the solid mass (land) was submerged, and that at the location of the earth, there was utter darkness. No light had arrived that would reflect off the surface of the water. Once again, we must consider what that means in starlight mechanics. Finally the unusual reference to the Spirit is in terms of a hen brooding over its eggs. This shows duration (10--21 days by analogy).
4, creation week is far too specific and human-friendly to have been part of that detonation, but God may have moved individual objects to our system. The verb for 'place' on Day 4 is infamously the same verb about Eve putting the forbidden fruit in Adam's hand. Notice that the object placed existed elsewhere.
5, Day 1's light is distant starlight, but there is range as to what would be needed to indicate an evening started (the start of Day 2). That was the purpose of that illumination, nothing to do with food producing.
6, the frequent phrase 'heavens and earth' is meant to limit the topic to those two things. The chapter is not, therefore, about the distant stars, and the above points already showed this. In v8, we find that the 'heavens' are the firmament! Boorsten, in his history of discoveries, writes that the ancient world only distinguished between static and moving objects, a category which is in Genesis. The stem 'shama' is local, moving ones. The stem 'kavov' is distant. The 'kavov' are only mentioned once, not even in a complete sentence, just acknowledging they were also made by God. We do not hear of them again until the tally of multitudes of stars in ch 15, which of course is another proof they are not local (ie, the tally proves that).

I'm the editor of a journal which is now about 150 pages of material. I am only summarizing here. I am not allowed to name the journal.

 

[EarlyActs]

TEs resort to an old earth of about 2 million years, this would not accord with the biblical genealogy accounts.

OK, understood. I don't know if they realize that but we do. Do you see there is another non-evolutionary time factor in my view? see the summary above in #70.

 

[prism]

1, that God made a mass dispersion or detonation with random and lifeless results some time before Day 1.

I'll stop right here.
Reason: human speculation

 

[EarlyActs]

I'll stop right here.
Reason: human speculation

The evidence is in the other 6 parts; I promise you. It is why Job, Psalms, and Isaiah refer to the 'spreading out'. You would not use that verb for 'precisely setting' the local objects.

It is very unfortunate that Christians are usually trained to hear keyphrases and any deviation from them makes them quit. They don't ask 'how can that be?' or 'what do you mean?' etc.

 

[EarlyActs]

Please see #38. No response.

 

[EarlyActs]

Thanks to all for interaction today. I hope I was polite; you all were.

 

[prism]

It is very unfortunate that Christians are usually trained to hear keyphrases and any deviation from them makes them quit. They don't ask 'how can that be?' or 'what do you mean?' etc.

That is a two-way street. When I see man's reason run up against God's Word (in it's plain and clear meaning), I'll go with God's Word everytime. i.e. Sola Scriptura. It's too bad Adam and Eve deviated from God's Word, key phrases not withstanding.

 

[Sereni-tea]

I don't believe it is a polemic, but it acts as one by default. I believe it is an ordinary-language description. There is no 2nd dimension to it.

Doesn't the extensive use of literary devices point to an much bigger underlying message?

 

[Sereni-tea]

I'm sure CREATION AND CHAOS spoke of pre-existing conditions. And he did have us read Cassuto to be familiar. Please be specific.

I have read his paper on The Literary Genre of Genesis, Chapter One, Crux: December 1991 Vol. XXVII, No.4, as well as his series written in Bibliotheca Sacra, 1975-76 entitled The Creation Account in Genesis 1:1-3. Plus a few other bits and pieces. What he wrote in those articles seemed to be along similar lines to my views. And yes, he does reference Cassuto.

In the first article he affirms "Gen I 1: 1- 2: 3 was originally addressed to Israel in the Wilderness of Sinai c. 1400 B.C." And further writes "To undergird this covenant an inspired Moses gave Israel this creation story, allowing only one God, Creator of heaven and earth, who alone deserves worship, trust and obedience."

By the way, I have no problem with pre-existing conditions. I don't really think Genesis 1 is about material creation at all, but more about ordering and ordaining purpose.

 

[EarlyActs]

That is a two-way street. When I see man's reason run up against God's Word (in it's plain and clear meaning), I'll go with God's Word everytime. i.e. Sola Scriptura. It's too bad Adam and Eve deviated from God's Word, key phrases not withstanding.

The Biblical reasons are explained in the other numbered parts. Can we remind ourselves that this is about astronomy? It is not some nefarious topic like Ch 3–the deceit of Satan. The correct view will make sense like ‘6 days are 2 pairs of 3 days’ makes sense.

At least read what the LXX rabbis said about 1:1-2.

Reminder:
I do not find any role for evolution.
The creation week of our solar system was recent and complete.
The question is about the lifeless distant objects which the passage itself and 2Peter 3 treat differently.
To ‘spread out’ (Job, Psalms, Isiah) is not at all to ‘place exactly’ in 1:14+. In Gen 15 we find that the distant stars have an entirely different message than the local system.

 

[EarlyActs]

Doesn't the extensive use of literary devices point to an much bigger underlying message?

That would turn into a mysticism. The passage is about man’s role, representing that earth is God’s, belongs to God. That’s what images weee for: They marked ownership.