A Reddit member asks about theistic evolution

[Sereni-tea]

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.

It is not good enough to say 'it was handed down from Adam'. You still need to interpret the narrative using proper hermeneutical principles.

 

[prism]

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

Ditto instead of a HaHa

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,...

I'm only answering you according to my comprehension of your replies.

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.

Which Sacrament is not based on God's Word? Baptism? The Lord's Supper?
.

 

[prism]

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.

Maybe, maybe not (which has been my point all along with these 'theories'.

 

[prism]

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.

Fine, what is the context of this passage?...

Genesis 1:5 KJV
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Is there even a context 'before the beginning?

 

[prism]

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).

You had said,

"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?"

to that I replied 'it is a given', meaning we read the Bible, as we read other books perhaps with the exception.. 'prayerfully'.
What cultural context would there be, since man was created in the image of God but still hadn't yet been given His breath. No cultures or societies have yet been established?

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?

I realize many ancient pagan cultures have their bizarre view of creation,

According to Norse mythology, three half-gods, half-giant brothers (Odin, Vili, and Ve) slay a hermaphrodite god born of the chance meeting of ice and fire (Imir). They then “carried the dead Imir to the middle of Yawning Gap. They made the world from his body. The earth was shaped from his flesh.

I don't relate to the pagan theories of ancient civilizations (not even to our own).

The Bible’s Conflict-Free Creation Story | Tabletalk

Whereas the pagan creation myths feature conflict as a driving force in the process of creation, the Scriptures, in extraordinary contrast, do not.

tabletalkmagazine.com

including our own paganizing culture through evolution and their 'billions of years, which in effect liberates man from moral responsibility before God.

 

[Sereni-tea]

Fine, what is the context of this passage?...

Genesis 1:5 KJV
And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Firstly, the literary context of the verse is within the larger context of Genesis 1 so we need to look at the passage as a whole. Taking a verse out of context doesn't help when trying to understand it. When we look at the literary style of Genesis 1 we see that it has an intricate structure and contains a lot of rhythm and repetition, parrallelism and chiasmus and uses a lot of number symbolism. All of which point to something more complex than a simple narrative.

Looking at the historical/cultural setting, if we assume the traditional view of the author as Moses, we see this was given to the Israelites after spending 400 years in Egypt. We can see a lot of similarities between Genesis 1 and other creation accounts from the ancient near east, which is hardly surprising given they are living in a similar culture. But what is more striking are the differences. The creation is not described as coming about after a battle between other gods, but Yahweh spoke and brought order to creation and a place where life can flourish. The gods of all other cultures as shown clearly to be part of Yahweh's creation - sun, moon, birds, animals, etc. And far from being created to do the bidding of gods, humanity is the pinnacle of Yahweh's creation, made in His image to rule over the rest of creation as His representatives.
These differences point to a polemical purpose - having a go at the beliefs of other cultures, and presenting Israel's God as the One True God.

When we look at the comology of the passage, we see it is in line with ancient cosmology (their views of the structure of the 'universe'), not modern day cosmology. The verse you quoted is a good example of that. It was a common view in the ancient near east that the light of day did not come from the sun (as today we know it does) but from the gods (or in Israel's case Yahweh) who is the ultimate source of light. This is of course perfectly reasonable since the light of dawn appears some time before the sun appears on the horizon, and remains some time after the sun disappears from the horizon. Understanding it this way makes much more sense of the passage.

Is there even a context 'before the beginning?

The Bible is a book and has a context - it did not appear in a vacuum. The Bible may be written for us all, reagrdless of our time and culture, but it was not written to us - we were not the original audience. We should therefore expect it to be written, not in alignment with our modern day culture or cosmology, but that of the ancient Israeiltes.

 

[Sereni-tea]

You had said,

"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?"

to that I replied 'it is a given', meaning we read the Bible, as we read other books perhaps with the exception.. 'prayerfully'.

Except that is not what I am seeing - which is why I said what I did. And yes, reading it prayerfully is absolutely necessary.

What cultural context would there be, since man was created in the image of God but still hadn't yet been given His breath. No cultures or societies have yet been established?

Everything has a context - see post above.

I realize many ancient pagan cultures have their bizarre view of creation,

According to Norse mythology, three half-gods, half-giant brothers (Odin, Vili, and Ve) slay a hermaphrodite god born of the chance meeting of ice and fire (Imir). They then “carried the dead Imir to the middle of Yawning Gap. They made the world from his body. The earth was shaped from his flesh.

I don't relate to the pagan theories of ancient civilizations (not even to our own).

The Bible’s Conflict-Free Creation Story | Tabletalk

Whereas the pagan creation myths feature conflict as a driving force in the process of creation, the Scriptures, in extraordinary contrast, do not.

tabletalkmagazine.com

Again this speaks to the context the Israelites were living in - see the post above.

including our own paganizing culture through evolution and their 'billions of years, which in effect liberates man from moral responsibility before God.

Whether God used evolution or not, or whether He created the universe billions of years ago or not, is not the context of the passage.

 

[EarlyActs]

Maybe, maybe not (which has been my point all along with these 'theories'.

About which aspect?

 

[EarlyActs]

It is not good enough to say 'it was handed down from Adam'. You still need to interpret the narrative using proper hermeneutical principles.

But not those from 2000 years later. What 'principles' are already there some 6000 years ago? That is where the custody matters so much. We do not have material that was invented by Moses.

There is not much in Gen 1 that is beyond the physical. The few are: what the Spirit was doing, the signs of vs 14-16 and then the image of God. Of course, God Himself.

The image means the place is God's, and man is a marker of His ownership. This theme endures through Scripture.

 

[EarlyActs]

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.



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.



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



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.

Your last paragraph is a load of assumption and inattention. 'kavov' would gradually show more and more as each day and year went by. But they were not 'shama.' 2000 years later, they are abundantly seen, in Gen 15.

The light of Day 1 was not daylight as we know it. It was simply that the reader could know, by a logical marker, that 24 hours had passed.

I don't know of any worries about the stars, simply the point, made by many commentators, that Genesis is very terse when the topic doesn't matter to the redemptive theme. I gave a comparison; there are many others. The main topic gets lots of space; the others get short schrift. Vs 14-17 are not about the distant objects, so they just barely get mentioned. God made them but did not place them. Placing is very definite engineering.

 

[prism]

When we look at the comology of the passage, we see it is in line with ancient cosmology (their views of the structure of the 'universe'), not modern day cosmology. The verse you quoted is a good example of that. It was a common view in the ancient near east that the light of day did not come from the sun (as today we know it does) but from the gods (or in Israel's case Yahweh) who is the ultimate source of light. This is of course perfectly reasonable since the light of dawn appears some time before the sun appears on the horizon, and remains some time after the sun disappears from the horizon. Understanding it this way makes much more sense of the passage.

Again, the perspicuity of Scripture becomes questionable at this point. Evening + Morning = 1 Day, is understood in every culture despite any deep pagan roots and despite 'taking verses out of context'. We have beaten this horse to death and I really don't care to pursue this conversation any further. Thank you for your opinions.

 

[prism]

About which aspect?

see post #171

 

[EarlyActs]

see post #171

And so? Scripture can be perspicuous and still cover the ground correctly about these events. I have integrated some recent research and find that (both-and) to be the case after all that.

 

[Sereni-tea]

But not those from 2000 years later. What 'principles' are already there some 6000 years ago? That is where the custody matters so much. We do not have material that was invented by Moses.

Even if we take your assumption that it was told to Adam by God and then handed down orally through to Moses or whoever wrote it down, it has still been through various languages and cultures in that time. This is context. It was still written down at some point in an historical context.
You can criticise me about reading it through a near eastern historical context if you like, but even taking your assumption into account it is much closer in time than your 21st century context.

There is not much in Gen 1 that is beyond the physical. The few are: what the Spirit was doing, the signs of vs 14-16 and then the image of God. Of course, God Himself.

The image means the place is God's, and man is a marker of His ownership. This theme endures through Scripture.

OK, thet's examine your claim:
Day 1 - light was made and separated day and night - not really something physical.
Day 2 - separataion of waters above from waters below - the waters were already there, so again, not really anything phycial except maybe the raqia if you accept it as the solid dome that ancients believed existed.
Day 3 - land was separated from the waters - again nothing physical was created - it was there already below the waters.
It is only from Day 4 that you can claim - from the text - that anything physical was made.

I do agree with you about the image. But again that becomes very clear from an understanding of the ancient near eastern culture.

 

[prism]

And so? Scripture can be perspicuous and still cover the ground correctly about these events. I have integrated some recent research and find that (both-and) to be the case after all that.

Scripture is perspicuous (not 'can be'), problem is, depraved fallen man easily clouds the issue.

 

[EarlyActs]

Even if we take your assumption that it was told to Adam by God and then handed down orally through to Moses or whoever wrote it down, it has still been through various languages and cultures in that time. This is context. It was still written down at some point in an historical context.
You can criticise me about reading it through a near eastern historical context if you like, but even taking your assumption into account it is much closer in time than your 21st century context.



OK, thet's examine your claim:
Day 1 - light was made and separated day and night - not really something physical.
Day 2 - separataion of waters above from waters below - the waters were already there, so again, not really anything phycial except maybe the raqia if you accept it as the solid dome that ancients believed existed.
Day 3 - land was separated from the waters - again nothing physical was created - it was there already below the waters.
It is only from Day 4 that you can claim - from the text - that anything physical was made.

I do agree with you about the image. But again that becomes very clear from an understanding of the ancient near eastern culture.

re the 21st century
But the LXX team cuts this in half. They wanted to make it make sense to the Greek speaking world.

 

[EarlyActs]

Even if we take your assumption that it was told to Adam by God and then handed down orally through to Moses or whoever wrote it down, it has still been through various languages and cultures in that time. This is context. It was still written down at some point in an historical context.
You can criticise me about reading it through a near eastern historical context if you like, but even taking your assumption into account it is much closer in time than your 21st century context.



OK, thet's examine your claim:
Day 1 - light was made and separated day and night - not really something physical.
Day 2 - separataion of waters above from waters below - the waters were already there, so again, not really anything phycial except maybe the raqia if you accept it as the solid dome that ancients believed existed.
Day 3 - land was separated from the waters - again nothing physical was created - it was there already below the waters.
It is only from Day 4 that you can claim - from the text - that anything physical was made.

I do agree with you about the image. But again that becomes very clear from an understanding of the ancient near eastern culture.

re when written
There is good evidence it was written down by Joseph. This is nested in the facts of the burst of similar alphabets in the NW semitic area.

 

[EarlyActs]

Even if we take your assumption that it was told to Adam by God and then handed down orally through to Moses or whoever wrote it down, it has still been through various languages and cultures in that time. This is context. It was still written down at some point in an historical context.
You can criticise me about reading it through a near eastern historical context if you like, but even taking your assumption into account it is much closer in time than your 21st century context.



OK, thet's examine your claim:
Day 1 - light was made and separated day and night - not really something physical.
Day 2 - separataion of waters above from waters below - the waters were already there, so again, not really anything phycial except maybe the raqia if you accept it as the solid dome that ancients believed existed.
Day 3 - land was separated from the waters - again nothing physical was created - it was there already below the waters.
It is only from Day 4 that you can claim - from the text - that anything physical was made.

I do agree with you about the image. But again that becomes very clear from an understanding of the ancient near eastern culture.

Very hard to follow.
The nouns in 1:2 are quite physical: land, water, darkness, possibly wind. The Spirit is not. Those thing are already there, and all that the author deals with. So most of Gen 1 is about the person's physical world.

The pertinent point of what happens on Day 1 is that there is a way to mark 24 hour: a person could have seen a star at twilight, 3-4 times in a row before the local objects would have overpowered. The physicality of Day 1 is not local, but arrives from physical things elsewhere.

I'd love to have list of brightest stars in order of brightness for the ancient near east sky.

 

[EarlyActs]

Scripture is perspicuous (not 'can be'), problem is, depraved fallen man easily clouds the issue.

The important point is whether there is a unity of knowledge like so many of our predecessors in the faith say there is. The statements about this world and about intangible things should cohere, integrate.

 

[prism]

The important point is whether there is a unity of knowledge like so many of our predecessors in the faith say there is. The statements about this world and about intangible things should cohere, integrate.

There is a 'unity of knowledge', but OE advocates find it hard to square their OE views with the genealogies found in Scripture which support YE.