A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[EarlyActs]

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.

Well Malones 1.5 hour doc The Moses Controversy with Cassuto will show that the verbal recitation was intact far before that. A person should just think through custody, working their way back through time. My current issue has one short read on ‘how long did Adam and Noah have custody of their part of Genesis?’ (The recitation grew by each generation.)

The tribe as described by Hebrews 11 for the period Adam to Joseph preserved their history by memorization and recitation. The people who mentored the youth in this were the ‘tannaim.’ It is close to teaching but the role of prompting recitation accurately was definitive. (this method is used in classical education today—see Sayers essay. I know a local child in her 4th year of it who just succeeded in a 1 hr 15 min recitation of history and documents at age 10.)

At the end of MC, Malone stated that his first doc on the evidence for the Exodus was not nearly as consequential nor supported as the role of Joseph. I think the name of the buried layer under Goshen was Adonis and it has several Semitic and Josephine features. (This is the layer deliberately neglected by German excavation in 1900, considered authoritative, for decades. )

He interviews Semitics chairpersons at U Toronto, Oxford, Princeton and Tel Aviv and each are stumped by his logic. If they answer logically, they will forfeit their career. Intellectual honesty is very rare these days.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Well Malones 1.5 hour doc The Moses Controversy will show that the verbal recitation was intact far before that. A person should just think through custody, working their way back through time. My current issue has one short read on ‘how long did Adam and Noah have custody of their part of Genesis?’ (The recitation grew by each generation.)

The tribe as described by Hebrews 11 for the period Adam to Joseph preserved their history by memorization and recitation. The people who mentored the youth in this were the ‘tannaim.’ It is close to teaching but the role of prompting recitation accurately was definitive. (this method is used in classical education today—see Sayers essay. I know a local child in her 4th year of it who just succeeded in a 1 hr 15 min recitation of history and documents at age 10.)

At the end of MC, Malone stated that his first doc on the evidence for the Exodus was not nearly as consequential nor supported as the role of Joseph. I think the name of the buried layer under Goshen was Adonis and it has several Semitic and Josephine features.

The ability for people to memorise and recite large amounts of narrative is not in question. What I do question is that the Genesis narrative was handed down from Adam to Joseph. I think there is no biblical evidence to suggest this, nor do I see any reason to insist it was the case.

 

[EarlyActs]

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.

Sorry but your last prg is mysticism to me.

 

[EarlyActs]

The ability for people to memorise and recite large amounts of narrative is not in question. What I do question is that the Genesis narrative was handed down from Adam to Joseph. I think there is no biblical evidence to suggest this, nor do I see any reason to insist it was the case.

The biblical reason is presence of mind. Use reverse engineering. How did Abraham know he came from Ur? Terah. How did Terah know he came from Shem? Etc etc etc. all that material was recited at firesides for 2000 years—Adam to Joseph.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Sorry but your last prg is mysticism to me.

I really don't see why.

 

[Sereni-tea]

The biblical reason is presence of mind. Use reverse engineering. How did Abraham know he came from Ur? Terah. How did Terah know he came from Shem? Etc etc etc. all that material was recited at firesides for 2000 years—Adam to Joseph.

I could accept that some of the stories of Abraham and family were passed down through the generations, which then Moses gathered together and wrote down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But I think what you are talking about goes way beyond that.

 

[EarlyActs]

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.

Here are a couple examples of people being very sure of Gods Word meaning a familiar thing:

1, ‘he leads me beside still waters.’ But we now know that when tending sheep in the near east, still water is actually toxic. So beside is actually past, and God is still a protective shepherd.

2, the eschatological futurists say any reference to Israel’s kingdom in Acts 2-4 is future. It is not a present reality. This is very familiar and totally wrong. The resurrection was the enthronement event.

 

[EarlyActs]

I could accept that some of the stories of Abraham and family were passed down through the generations, which then Moses gathered together and wrote down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But I think what you are talking about goes way beyond that.

So you are quite willing to read Waltke but not Malone.

Glad to hear you are thinking your way back from Moses. That’s a start. But the evidence that Joseph had an alphabet is very clear. In fact all the NW Semitic tongues have them at Joseph’s time.

 

[Sereni-tea]

So you are quite willing to read Waltke but not Malone.

Glad to hear you are thinking your way back from Moses. That’s a start. But the evidence that Joseph had an alphabet is very clear. In fact all the NW Semitic tongues have them at Joseph’s time.

I came across Waltke's articles when looking into the genre of Genesis 1. This is something I am very interested in, because for me it has always been the foundation question which decides how Genesis 1 should be understood.

This stuff about Joesph and the alphabet, or recitation I am not interested in. I don't see any justification for it, nor do I think it changes the basic question about the genre of Genesis 1.

 

[EarlyActs]

I came across Waltke's articles when looking into the genre of Genesis 1. This is something I am very interested in, because for me it has always been the foundation question which decides how Genesis 1 should be understood.

This stuff about Joesph and the alphabet, or recitation I am not interested in. I don't see any justification for it, nor do I think it changes the basic question about the genre of Genesis 1.

You might think of it as solving a crime. Is there any possibility that 2 or 3 things are going on at the same time?

 

[prism]

Can we remind ourselves that this is about astronomy?

I would believe the principle is the same regardless...

Genesis 1:4-9 (KJV) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

even...

Hebrews 11:3 (KJV) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

 

[EarlyActs]

I would believe the principle is the same regardless...

Genesis 1:4-9 (KJV) And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

even...

Hebrews 11:3 (KJV) Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

By astronomy I mean the conditions that would have earth submerged in water and that would be absent, locally, of any light, not even reflection on water.

After 50 years in the Word , I’m not one who needs passages pasted, I need to know what you are saying about them.

There is no conflict in what I’m saying with Heb 11. Matter must be explained, and is .

 

[EarlyActs]

I came across Waltke's articles when looking into the genre of Genesis 1. This is something I am very interested in, because for me it has always been the foundation question which decides how Genesis 1 should be understood.

This stuff about Joesph and the alphabet, or recitation I am not interested in. I don't see any justification for it, nor do I think it changes the basic question about the genre of Genesis 1.

No justification for knowing why alphabets showed much the same time in the NW near east?

 

[Sereni-tea]

No justification for knowing why alphabets showed much the same time in the NW near east?

No justification for a chain of custody of the material from Adam to Jospeh, nor attributing everything to Joseph that you do. But even if it is true, what does it matter to the message of Genesis 1?

 

[prism]

After 50 years in the Word , I’m not one who needs passages pasted, I need to know what you are saying about them.

I have the same amount of years, but have also learned that God's Word (even pasted passages) trumps man's speculation any day of the week.

 

[EarlyActs]

No justification for a chain of custody of the material from Adam to Jospeh, nor attributing everything to Joseph that you do. But even if it is true, what does it matter to the message of Genesis 1?

It might not, but I think we'd all like to know whether we are dealing with something written two millenia later. If there is supposed to be a mysticism to it, wouldn't it show in other ways? We know that Paul regarded the various sons of Abraham as symbols of certain things later (analogies established by Isaiah) but the events themselves were historic. If the NT has that (and it does), then I would need to see it treat Gen 1 symbolically first.

But wait, the OT already does this. It tells us (and the NT quotes this) that the old covenant tabernacle was to copy heaven's. See Hebrews 7 or so on that, and the place in the Torah that is quoted. But the NT does not do this with Gen 1. It's references to Gen 1 are all in the ordinary usage.

There is of course 2 Cor 4, but there would be not retroactive meaning. It's the other way around. The God who can declare light to exist has done that again because believers are popping up among the Gentiles. He does not say that Day 1's light was spiritual change or awareness; duh, because there are no people. (Yet I have had people write me as an editor to take them seriously that Day 1's light is not starlight, but rather the 'presence' of God.')

 

[EarlyActs]

I have the same amount of years, but have also learned that God's Word (even pasted passages) trumps man's speculation any day of the week.

I am integrating not speculating. I'm putting things together instead of fragmenting them. You would see that if you read all 6 points of #70 , but you refuse to. What are you afraid of?

The evangelistic situation is this: a number of BB people realize that instead of displacing the Christian belief, they have supported it, because there had to have been someone who made the mass and detonated it. They look in their scopes and see a high degree of randomness and lifelessness. Is the mark of a Christian to deny what what we see with our eyes? No! So if there is a way to take a natural feature like that and provide an explanation, and find it in 1:2, and in the astronomy of Day 4, then what is your problem?

They see extra time; we do not see evolutionary development. If they will believe the Word without evolution because we agree to extra lifeless time, what does that damage?

As the journal has asked for 6 months now: if there is no life and no evolution in those dispersed objects, what does it matter if they were spread out some time before? And now I find that we are not really talking about very much time! It may be as short as the visibility of Centauri from earth. But on principle, lifelessness means it does not matter. The text is about the forming of earth from what it was and placing objects by it; those are the words chosen whether we like it or not. In no exchange I have had so far do I find anyone in YEC answering logically on this. They think they are breaking something about the Word.

Even 2 Peter 3 confirms this, and that's the last NT word on the topic.

 

[EarlyActs]

I have the same amount of years, but have also learned that God's Word (even pasted passages) trumps man's speculation any day of the week.

Then why don't you diminish those here who quote Waltke, and maybe view Malone and see all the evidence before you shout 'speculation'?

 

[prism]

Then why don't you diminish those here who quote Waltke, and maybe view Malone and see all the evidence before you shout 'speculation'?

God's Word is evidence enough. Seeing we don't see eye to eye on this, here is my last word on this (in poetic form)...

eye vs ear

The world pursues through it's wondering eyes
the secret that lies beyond the skies;
Those who know their God quite dear
hold to their ears His Word so near.

Until those wandering eyes come home
the soul abides all alone,
Onto the pages of Holy Writ
the eye and ear make a perfect fit.

 

[EarlyActs]

God's Word is evidence enough. Seeing we don't see eye to eye on this, here is my last word on this (in poetic form)...

eye vs ear

The world pursues through it's wondering eyes
the secret that lies beyond the skies;
Those who know their God quite dear
hold to their ears His Word so near.

Until those wandering eyes come home
the soul abides all alone,
Onto the pages of Holy Writ
the eye and ear make a perfect fit.

I am the one expositing the Word. You seem to have dust and rust that needs cleaning out. I do my work because I love the Word, and there is a move among BB people to realize there must be a God, so: is there a sensible connection to the Biblical term 'spreading out' (which is not at all the term used in Gen 1 for placing our designed system) that is random and lifeless? Yes. And if it is lifeless, there is no support for evolution.

What is your problem with that?