A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[prism]

Did I at any point claim that 'day' in Genesis 1 was dependant on culture? Didn't I agree that it is used in its normal sense of the word?

I don't really understand why anyone has a problem when I speak of the importance of reading Scripture in its literary and cultural context. This is afterall a basic principle of Biblical hermeneutics. Some of the questions you should ask when approaching any text include: What is the structure of the passage or are there any literary devices (repetition, parallelism, chiasmus, etc) used, and what do these tell us about the author's purpose? How does the original language of a passage tell us about the shape, structure or purpose of the passage? Who are the characters and and how does the story develop? Who was the author and his original audience? What was their historical context?

We all know that such questions are important, so I simply cannot fathom why young and old earth creationists throw out these basic principles when it comes to the early chapters of Genesis, and seem to criticise me for suggesting that these things are fundamental to understanding the text properly.

This has nothing to do with intellectual elite handing down 'their' interpreation or 'their' agenda - whatever you even meant by that. On the contrary, this is all about approaching the passage the same way we should approach any passage of Scripture, using the same hermeneutical principles we should be applying everywhere.



I uphold the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture as the Westminster confession of Faith states:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

It very clearly states that not everything is plain, but anything necessary for salvation is crystal clear.
I would say that the important things in Genesis 1 are abundantly clear - God is the Creator of all things and we are made in His image.

I noticed you completely dodged my main point: 'the definition of a day', evening and morning one day. How can that be different in any culture, ancient or modern?

 

[prism]

And that we automatically understand and do when reading anything else! Why is this one book, the Bible, not treated and handled the same way?

I'd say that is a given, especially when examining it's claims. No one is claiming otherwise.

 

[makesends]

And that we automatically understand and do when reading anything else! Why is this one book, the Bible, not treated and handled the same way?

It's a whole 'nuther subject, but I attribute that phenomenon to simple superstition. It is the same thing that causes people to 'spiritualize' what they read instead of continuing to read, to read scripture texts or passages one-at-time in order to immediately apply each one of them, to parallel where no parallel is indicated, and so on, or even to treat Scripture with kid gloves as though the whole of it was above us and almost a sacrament in itself, not to be read as essential to life but as a bit of therapy or something.

 

[EarlyActs]

But you would hold, assuming a 'detonation', that what was detonated was also created by God, no? And not that God merely came upon a 'singularity' to detonate —i.e. the neither the detonation, nor the singularity, existed or came to be, independent of God?

Oh yes, that’s the neat thing about thinking of the term in Job, Psalms and Isaiah the ‘spreading out.’ Yes God did it. Also you would not use the term ‘to set/place’ from 14-17 for this event. Curiously the distant objects are still really spreading .

The other Biblical term is ‘stretching out’ but this seems to refer to a visual aspect: the sky was like a large sheet of skins used for shade in daytime and the seams were randomly allowing the sunlight through.

My view is that some randomness is there but not at all in our finely designed local system.

 

[EarlyActs]

How does the pinpoint of light coming to the earth from Alpha Centauri equate to 'Day' and separates day from night?
Would alpha centauri even have been visible in the ancient near eastern sky, given it is a southern star and not visible above a latitude of 29deg north. Israel I think is around 31 deg north, not sure about Eden?

If we read the text from the POV of earth, all he needs is a marker that shows right after dusk to mark 24 hours.

Your southern location is a great point and that is why I don’t finalize. I don’t know how to use Starry Night software but I believe you can dial up that year and see the sky as was and pick out a marker.

Due to tectonic shifting we don’t know really where he was.

Remember, POV in this case would mean that light was just arriving; other objects would show up per calculation of distance from earth.

 

[prism]

or even to treat Scripture with kid gloves as though the whole of it was above us

isn't it?...Psalm 138:2 (KJV) I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Or is Scripture not His Word?

us and almost a sacrament in itself,

Only problem is, Sacraments are wholly dependent on God's Word.

 

[EarlyActs]

Pure Speculation, but not according to God's Word.

That would depend on when the spreading out of Job, Psalms, Isaiah happened

 

[prism]

That would depend on when the spreading out of Job, Psalms, Isaiah happened

If you could show me in Scripture that "God detonated it, and our planet was a little bit piece from that event which He chose to improve into our system.", otherwise it is pure unadulterated speculation. (Maybe you are trying to argue that it is man's best guess outside of Scripture...I'll maybe grant that much)

 

[EarlyActs]

Did I at any point claim that 'day' in Genesis 1 was dependant on culture? Didn't I agree that it is used in its normal sense of the word?

I don't really understand why anyone has a problem when I speak of the importance of reading Scripture in its literary and cultural context. This is afterall a basic principle of Biblical hermeneutics. Some of the questions you should ask when approaching any text include: What is the structure of the passage or are there any literary devices (repetition, parallelism, chiasmus, etc) used, and what do these tell us about the author's purpose? How does the original language of a passage tell us about the shape, structure or purpose of the passage? Who are the characters and and how does the story develop? Who was the author and his original audience? What was their historical context?

We all know that such questions are important, so I simply cannot fathom why young and old earth creationists throw out these basic principles when it comes to the early chapters of Genesis, and seem to criticise me for suggesting that these things are fundamental to understanding the text properly.

This has nothing to do with intellectual elite handing down 'their' interpreation or 'their' agenda - whatever you even meant by that. On the contrary, this is all about approaching the passage the same way we should approach any passage of Scripture, using the same hermeneutical principles we should be applying everywhere.



I uphold the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture as the Westminster confession of Faith states:
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

It very clearly states that not everything is plain, but anything necessary for salvation is crystal clear.
I would say that the important things in Genesis 1 are abundantly clear - God is the Creator of all things and we are made in His image.

The logic of the 6 days is also clear. Fish are not created before there are oceans for them, for ex.

 

[EarlyActs]

If you could show me in Scripture that "God detonated it, and our planet was a little bit piece from that event which He chose to improve into our system.", otherwise it is pure unadulterated speculation. (Maybe you are trying to argue that it is man's best guess outside of Scripture...I'll maybe grant that much)

We want to present the most sensible message we can, and the random expanding nature of the distant worlds seems plain, as Rom 1 says. While our system is carefully placed.

Lewis cites an ancient Greek mathematician on how remote and small we are relative to the universe.

 

[makesends]

We want to present the most sensible message we can, and the random expanding nature of the distant worlds seems plain, as Rom 1 says. While our system is carefully placed.

Lewis cites an ancient Greek mathematician on how remote and small we are relative to the universe.

Where does Romans 1 say that?

 

[makesends]

Oh yes, that’s the neat thing about thinking of the term in Job, Psalms and Isaiah the ‘spreading out.’ Yes God did it. Also you would not use the term ‘to set/place’ from 14-17 for this event. Curiously the distant objects are still really spreading .

The other Biblical term is ‘stretching out’ but this seems to refer to a visual aspect: the sky was like a large sheet of skins used for shade in daytime and the seams were randomly allowing the sunlight through.

My view is that some randomness is there but not at all in our finely designed local system.

Except for the concept, "randomness", I agree.

 

[makesends]

isn't it?...Psalm 138:2 (KJV) I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Or is Scripture not His Word?

Only problem is, Sacraments are wholly dependent on God's Word.

Haha! You couldn't very well take me much more out of context and use, could you?

If I was to come back according to that kind of answer, I'd show where God says need not be taught and that we have the mind of Christ, and that if sacraments are wholly dependent on God's Word, then it would be circular to say that scripture is to be treated sacramentally.

If you have a real problem with what I said, present it honestly.

 

[EarlyActs]

If you could show me in Scripture that "God detonated it, and our planet was a little bit piece from that event which He chose to improve into our system.", otherwise it is pure unadulterated speculation. (Maybe you are trying to argue that it is man's best guess outside of Scripture...I'll maybe grant that much)

Another reason for the bit piece line is that the earth is described as formless, sounding like a fragment. The pottery makers of the time would put fragments under water to re-form them. Notice that in 2 Peter 3 the verb for forming the earth is from pottery making.

The LXX however chose’ unseen’ as in submerged for this term (tohu or formless) drawing on the next line. Their mission was to make the text as sensible as possible to the Greek world.

 

[Sereni-tea]

I noticed you completely dodged my main point: 'the definition of a day', evening and morning one day. How can that be different in any culture, ancient or modern?

Then you really didn't understand what I wrote. I am not the one dodging anything. I made it clear that the word day means a normal day. But it is not an individual word which tells you about the meaning of a passage. You have to look at the context of the whole passage.

 

[Sereni-tea]

I'd say that is a given, especially when examining it's claims. No one is claiming otherwise.

Then show me how your reading of Genesis 1 takes into account the literary and cutlrual context of the passage.
How does your reading account for the many literary devices used throughout (repetition, rhythm, chiasmus, numerical symbolism, etc).
How does your reading account for the views of ancient cosmology evident in the text (three tiered structure of the 'universe', darkness and water as symbols of disorder, light of day before the sun, not even referring to the sun and moon by name, but by the term 'lights', meaning of the image of God, etc)?
How does your reading of the account of Genesis 1 relate to other creation accounts from the ancient near east?

 

[Sereni-tea]

If we read the text from the POV of earth, all he needs is a marker that shows right after dusk to mark 24 hours.

No, the light is called 'Day'. Calling a pinpoint of light 'daylight' is a big stretch.

Your southern location is a great point and that is why I don’t finalize. I don’t know how to use Starry Night software but I believe you can dial up that year and see the sky as was and pick out a marker.

Due to tectonic shifting we don’t know really where he was.

Remember, POV in this case would mean that light was just arriving; other objects would show up per calculation of distance from earth.

So in your speculation, Proxima Centauri (4.2 light years away) showed up on Day 1, alpha Centauri (a binary star system, 4.4 light years away) showed up a bit after Creation week and then no other stars would have appears until a year an a half or so after Creation Week when the next nearest (Barnard's star (6 light years away) would have appeared. So when God made the lights in the sky on Day 4 we are talking about sun, moon and single star (which may or may not have been visible in their sky).
Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[EarlyActs]

No, the light is called 'Day'. Calling a pinpoint of light 'daylight' is a big stretch.



So in your speculation, Proxima Centauri (4.2 light years away) showed up on Day 1, alpha Centauri (a binary star system, 4.4 light years away) showed up a bit after Creation week and then no other stars would have appears until a year an a half or so after Creation Week when the next nearest (Barnard's star (6 light years away) would have appeared. So when God made the lights in the sky on Day 4 we are talking about sun, moon and single star (which may or may not have been visible in their sky).
Am I understanding you correctly?

Remember we have to say, based on POV, that the light from Centauri showed on Day 1. By backdating, that means it was there some 4 years prior . Next is how long it took to get there from the ‘spreading ‘ event?

I don’t think he meant the mysterious light was day or daylight but that there was now a marker of a 24 hour rotation.

Is Bernard’s north enough to see from the ancient near east?

‘Shama ’ heavens are not ‘kavov’ stars. ‘Shama’ and ‘raqia’ become one expression in v8.

Notice that ‘kavov’ is only in a detached line in v16, and does not appear again until ch 15 where they stand for the millions of Abrahams children. Thus they are quite different from our local system .

When I say detached , I mean compare to many other narrative cases where a side topic is just barely mentioned. See the table of nations genealogy about other sons, in ch 10. The first son that matters gets all the attention.

 

[EarlyActs]

Then show me how your reading of Genesis 1 takes into account the literary and cutlrual context of the passage.
How does your reading account for the many literary devices used throughout (repetition, rhythm, chiasmus, numerical symbolism, etc).
How does your reading account for the views of ancient cosmology evident in the text (three tiered structure of the 'universe', darkness and water as symbols of disorder, light of day before the sun, not even referring to the sun and moon by name, but by the term 'lights', meaning of the image of God, etc)?
How does your reading of the account of Genesis 1 relate to other creation accounts from the ancient near east?

Remember that the narrative is verbal from day 6 or 7–whenever God explained it to Adam. Adam is custodian a long time, then Noah.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Remember we have to say, based on POV, that the light from Centauri showed on Day 1. By backdating, that means it was there some 4 years prior . Next is how long it took to get there from the ‘spreading ‘ event?

I don’t think he meant the mysterious light was day or daylight but that there was now a marker of a 24 hour rotation.

The text is very clear - on Day 1 the light is called 'Day' and the darkness is called 'Night'. It is not just a marker. Your explanation does not fit well with the text.

Is Bernard’s north enough to see from the ancient near east?

Barnard's Star is a northern hemisphere start. It is the closest star seen in the northern hemisphere. Unfortunately I am not sure they would have been able to see it, since it is likely too dim to see with the naked eye.

‘Shama ’ heavens are not ‘kavov’ stars. ‘Shama’ and ‘raqia’ become one expression in v8.

The 'raqia' is a solid dome that the ancients believed held up the 'heavens'.

Notice that ‘kavov’ is only in a detached line in v16, and does not appear again until ch 15 where they stand for the millions of Abrahams children. Thus they are quite different from our local system .

When I say detached , I mean compare to many other narrative cases where a side topic is just barely mentioned. See the table of nations genealogy about other sons, in ch 10. The first son that matters gets all the attention.

So are you saying since the 'stars' are barely mentioned in v16, you don't need to worry about them?

I'm sorry,but it seems to me that in your speculation, when God was 'explaining all this to Adam', Adam wouldn't have know what a star was, because there wouldn't have been any visible to him. This all really does a disservice to Scripture as well as science.