A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[Sereni-tea]

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?

What mysticism are you talking about?

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.

Genesis 1 is not symbolic. God actually did create the heavens and the earth. However it is told in a way that the people of the time could understand, i.e using their cosmology, not ours today.

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.

Yes, the Temple is a microcosm of the cosmic temple. There is symbolism everywhere in the Temple.

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.')

As I have mentioned, the light on Day 1 is consistent with ancient cosmology. It was a common belief in the ancient near east that the light of day came from a source other than the sun - understandable since you see the light of day before the sun comes over the horizon, and remains after it goes down. Hence it would have made perfect sense that Genesis 1 describes light before the sun on Day 4. For us today, who understand that the light comes from the sun, it is confusing and we try all sorts of ways to try to make sense of it. But it is not necessary at all once you understand the cultural context of the passage.

 

[Alive]

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?

Let’s stick to topic and refrain from asserting a person is dusty and rusty. Thank you.

 

[Sereni-tea]

The light that appeared defined a day. It did not define 3 days in a general way. Keep trying.

Glad you have taken a step back from mysticism.

Yes, the light that appeared on Day 1 was called 'Day'. Which is why trying to read Genesis 1 as anything other than ancient cosmology presents problems. Again God was not trying to correct their 'sceince' but their theology. He was communicating with them in a way they understood. Likewise when God separates the waters above from the waters below using the 'firmament'. The ancients really did believe there was a solid dome above the land which held back the water above the land and doors and windows which opened and let the water through as rain. Genesis 1 makes perfect sense when you understand the beliefs/knowledge of the day.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, the light that appeared on Day 1 was called 'Day'. Which is why trying to read Genesis 1 as anything other than ancient cosmology presents problems. Again God was not trying to correct their 'sceince' but their theology. He was communicating with them in a way they understood. Likewise when God separates the waters above from the waters below using the 'firmament'. The ancients really did believe there was a solid dome above the land which held back the water above the land and doors and windows which opened and let the water through as rain. Genesis 1 makes perfect sense when you understand the beliefs/knowledge of the day.

The original convo was between God and Adam. Adam then told others. There was no other theology. There was no other science. There are no other beliefs/knowledge of the day. That is part of the mistake of not knowing the Moses Controversy.

 

[EarlyActs]

What mysticism are you talking about?



Genesis 1 is not symbolic. God actually did create the heavens and the earth. However it is told in a way that the people of the time could understand, i.e using their cosmology, not ours today.



Yes, the Temple is a microcosm of the cosmic temple. There is symbolism everywhere in the Temple.



As I have mentioned, the light on Day 1 is consistent with ancient cosmology. It was a common belief in the ancient near east that the light of day came from a source other than the sun - understandable since you see the light of day before the sun comes over the horizon, and remains after it goes down. Hence it would have made perfect sense that Genesis 1 describes light before the sun on Day 4. For us today, who understand that the light comes from the sun, it is confusing and we try all sorts of ways to try to make sense of it. But it is not necessary at all once you understand the cultural context of the passage.

Re the last line, I would say there is a cultural thing you have missed, reported by Boorstin, that the ancient near east person distinguished between moving and static objects. The moving ones were communicators, which communication could either be true or deceit.

 

[EarlyActs]

The Bible Project has a great treatment of Gen 1 called How Gen 1 Communicates The Bible’s Message. You Tube.

The opening point is that ‘heavens and earth’ are clearly confined to what a person sees (sky and land), not a universal statement.

 

[prism]

The Bible Project has a great treatment of Gen 1 called How Gen 1 Communicates The Bible’s Message. You Tube.

The opening point is that ‘heavens and earth’ are clearly confined to what a person sees (sky and land), not a universal statement.

How would that make a difference in the Theistic Evolutionist's or the Creationist's view?

 

[Sereni-tea]

The original convo was between God and Adam. Adam then told others. There was no other theology. There was no other science. There are no other beliefs/knowledge of the day. That is part of the mistake of not knowing the Moses Controversy.

If the original conversation was between God and Adam, why is the text in third person rather than first?

But whether it was Adam or Moses or whoever, it doens't change the fact that it is written with the cultural background of the ancient near east, not 21st century western culture.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Re the last line, I would say there is a cultural thing you have missed, reported by Boorstin, that the ancient near east person distinguished between moving and static objects. The moving ones were communicators, which communication could either be true or deceit.

Yes, it was a common view in the ancient near east that the celestial bodies were spiritual beings. This was due to the fact that they moved, they must be alive. I didn't miss that, just hadn't mentioned it.

 

[Sereni-tea]

The Bible Project has a great treatment of Gen 1 called How Gen 1 Communicates The Bible’s Message. You Tube.

The opening point is that ‘heavens and earth’ are clearly confined to what a person sees (sky and land), not a universal statement.

The Bible Project does a fantastic job with Genesis 1; love their videos.
There is a lot of debate whether Genesis 1 is a heading or not. I don't have a problem with it either way but I'm not sure how it agrees with your views.
Have you watched the Genesis series on the Bible Project Classroom? Tim Mackie goes into great detail about the language of Genesis 1 and the beautiful literary structure.

 

[EarlyActs]

The Bible Project does a fantastic job with Genesis 1; love their videos.
There is a lot of debate whether Genesis 1 is a heading or not. I don't have a problem with it either way but I'm not sure how it agrees with your views.
Have you watched the Genesis series on the Bible Project Classroom? Tim Mackie goes into great detail about the language of Genesis 1 and the beautiful literary structure.

The formula for much of Genesis verbal narrative is
1, heading
2, pre-existing conditions
3, new material
4, summary
--Rabbi Cassuto

Take Rebekkah in 26. She was not a virgin just that day, nor beautiful just that day, nor had an aunt and uncle just that day. That's what is meant by pre-existing.

The LXX rabbis did use a sentence (not a dangling phrase) for 1:1, but when they translated 1:2, they used the connector 'de' instead of 'kai.' Thus giving us a basis for 'Now the earth was (already)...'. Because you would not have a 'surprise' or contrast with 'kai.' That is a very substantial statement about how to handle it, given that they wanted to produce a piece that would be as sensible as possible to the whole world at the time.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, it was a common view in the ancient near east that the celestial bodies were spiritual beings. This was due to the fact that they moved, they must be alive. I didn't miss that, just hadn't mentioned it.

The LXX team is helpful again, choosing 'semeia.' (signs). These are not personal beings like 'archas' or 'exousias' or 'kosmokratoras tou skotous.' Ruler, authorities, world-powers of darkness. It shows in 4:16 next as the mark on Cain. In the NT, they are the miracle events. 'What sign will you show us?'

 

[EarlyActs]

How would that make a difference in the Theistic Evolutionist's or the Creationist's view?

How would that make a difference in the Theistic Evolutionist's or the Creationist's view?

The TE might like to know that there is no random origin to the distant universe even though Gen 1 is confined to our system. The 'spreading out' has randomness in result, but was set off by God. This precludes evolution, because Gen 1 is obvious intricately designed and produced life.

For the Creationist, he might be helped to know that it is OK to allow for a mass detonation of the distant universe shortly before Day 1; we are not as Christians required to say that there was nothing at all and then everything. If science sees a mass detonation, like a detective sees a bullet hole in a wall, there is not much point in denying it. Science once said that the Biblical flood must have been confined to the Caspian sea, but this has fallen apart. Catastrophism is found everywhere on the planet.

But the creationist also has a much more sensible explanation of the complexity and completeness of Gen 1, if, as it says, it is treated as a bit separate from that mass detonation.

Somehow the idea got started that there was life inherent in the universe by science, and this is fraught with problems. But also, to say that there is lifelessness about the 'spreading out' apart from creation week is also Biblical.

 

[Sereni-tea]

The formula for much of Genesis verbal narrative is
1, heading
2, pre-existing conditions
3, new material
4, summary
--Rabbi Cassuto

This is Cassuto's view but not everyone agrees with it.

Take Rebekkah in 26. She was not a virgin just that day, nor beautiful just that day, nor had an aunt and uncle just that day. That's what is meant by pre-existing.

I think we all know what 'pre-existing' means.

The LXX rabbis did use a sentence (not a dangling phrase) for 1:1, but when they translated 1:2, they used the connector 'de' instead of 'kai.' Thus giving us a basis for 'Now the earth was (already)...'. Because you would not have a 'surprise' or contrast with 'kai.' That is a very substantial statement about how to handle it, given that they wanted to produce a piece that would be as sensible as possible to the whole world at the time.

So you agree then, that the cultural context is important?

 

[Sereni-tea]

The LXX team is helpful again, choosing 'semeia.' (signs). These are not personal beings like 'archas' or 'exousias' or 'kosmokratoras tou skotous.' Ruler, authorities, world-powers of darkness. It shows in 4:16 next as the mark on Cain. In the NT, they are the miracle events. 'What sign will you show us?'

You were the one that brought up lights as being communicators. I pointed out a common belief about the stars in the ancient near east.
How Genesis 1 relates to that view has been debated.

The text says of the lights:
"let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,

But then also goes on to say:
"and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth ...And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars ... And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness."

This is the function that God assigned to the lights:

• to rule over the day and night;
• to separate light from darkness; and
• to be for signs and seasons, days and years.

 

[EarlyActs]

This is Cassuto's view but not everyone agrees with it.



I think we all know what 'pre-existing' means.



So you agree then, that the cultural context is important?

They weren't adding 2nd cent. Alexandrine culture. They were trying to present the original.

 

[EarlyActs]

You were the one that brought up lights as being communicators. I pointed out a common belief about the stars in the ancient near east.
How Genesis 1 relates to that view has been debated.

The text says of the lights:
"let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years,

But then also goes on to say:
"and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth ...And God made the two great lights—the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night—and the stars ... And God set them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness."

This is the function that God assigned to the lights:

• to rule over the day and night;
• to separate light from darkness; and
• to be for signs and seasons, days and years.

A 'semeia' is much different from a chronological marker. See the word usage comparison with Cain. This is why original Biblical astronomy could indicate that Christ would come, because there were assigned meanings to the movements. Then an evil form of this began (astrology) and it became self-fortune oriented. This is partly mapped by Larson in THE BETHLEHEM STAR, and THE GOSPEL IN THE STARS way back about 100 years ago.

In Gen 15, the two purposes of local markers and distant clusters are crossed, because Abraham is supposed to see, not only that Christ's day would come (by calculation/projection I think) but also that there would be millions of children in Christ, Gal 3:8,9; Jn 8.

 

[prism]

For the Creationist, he might be helped to know that it is OK to allow for a mass detonation of the distant universe shortly before Day 1; we are not as Christians required to say that there was nothing at all and then everything. If science sees a mass detonation, like a detective sees a bullet hole in a wall, there is not much point in denying it. Science once said that the Biblical flood must have been confined to the Caspian sea, but this has fallen apart. Catastrophism is found everywhere on the planet.

I've always been under the impression that empirical science based it's theories on repeated observable occurrences.
What type of 'science' are we speaking of here?

 

[EarlyActs]

This is Cassuto's view but not everyone agrees with it.



I think we all know what 'pre-existing' means.



So you agree then, that the cultural context is important?

re Cassuto's view.
After 10 illustrations of it, I don't there is any question of it being true, but there are tweaks. For ex., The Rebekkah illustration has no header (or it is much previous). The flood has an enormous pre-existing section, and 3 identical summaries (3x the rainbow is explained).

 

[EarlyActs]

I've always been under the impression that empirical science based it's theories on repeated observable occurrences.
What type of 'science' are we speaking of here?

Weather manipulation, says a Canadian scientist in a 2010 NBC interview, has been tested in a lab, and when they have gone out to actual weather, the same thing happens. That is where the visual evidence of the universe supports a mass detonation. So there is a theory and there is repetition and observation.

Dr. S. Psarris lists the forms of visual evidence in his study of starlight and creation. Youtube (several). One of the pieces (forms) is 'red-shifting.' Because of earth's near-center location (near the spot in the universe where the BB happened), many galaxies go red on us, just as if a freeway had a lot more traffic one direction than the other, we would hear a lot of down-toned sound from that busier direction. Theory, repetition, observation.

Of course, there are always the people who know this but think their other imaginative ideas are just as true; not.