EarlyActs
Well Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2023
- Messages
- 3,118
- Reaction score
- 318
- Points
- 83
A regional apologetics forum just asked what I believed about a young earth, the Genesis flood, Genesis Apologetics, IS GENESIS HISTORY? and the forum's own doctrines. Here is a copy of my answer:
re: Age of The Earth,
I just looked through the (website ) pages and don't find an exact date, but I am sure a young age is meant. Here is my understanding from working for some decades on the actual meaning of some passages:
1, Creation Week is certainly recent. There is every reason to view all life forms as thriving and complete immediately. The Hebrew for 'fill' actually means 'swarm with swarms.' If there is an adjustment in time, it is about the speed of orbit after a collision. You may be familiar with Velikovsky's note on this, that a collision would reduce an orbit's speed. This should be factored into the longevity statements as well as the date of Creation Week. Slower orbits now mean high #s after such a collision for the same amount of time.
a, I have read that 'swarm with swarms' may supply an answer about other humans than the narrative records; there does, after all, have to be a sound literary explanation as to the wider population, because it is not stated.
2, in 'tohu wa-bohu' is an allowance that the sphere which we are on was in another state before creation week. It was dark, chaotic, watery. It was possibly judged, as you may know by comparing Jer 4:23 as Waltke did. But rather than being a problem this contains 2 solutions:
a, Rabbi Dr. Cassuto (FROM ADAM TO NOAH), who rescued the text from JEPD theory, has shown that there is a recitation structure to Genesis until we get to the part where Joseph wrote down his history, ch 39+. The first line of of each section is a title, a cue to a tribal student to recite through that section. That's why 1:1 is not a sentence, grammatically. For other titles, see 2:4, 5:1, 10:1.
b, that the opening accurately describes the local scene (our solar system). There is just the earth, without sunlight or a sun until day 3, but there is perhaps distant light, water, and land is brought upwards to separate water (Ps 104). And it is very soggy because it percolates a mist. See below on the 6 days matching 'tohu wa-bohu' at e.
c, it is consistent with 2 Peter 3 (next).
d, In my linguistic study of 2 Peter 3, 'ekpalai' (from of old) certainly seems to be set to contrast 'sunestosa' (to be formed like pottery). The universe is from of old; did he say it this way to refer to everything except our solar system? But the earth was formed like pottery, meaning, you have to have watery clay to start. There was. It is quite intriguing, but of course, there is only an implication that 'sunestosa' is more recent because of the broad statement about the distant universe.
e, the narrative of Gen 1 matches or 'answers' "tohu wa-bohu" perfectly: the various spheres of our planet are filled in logical sequence, and there is the intriguing short turn-around of the sun in place the morning that the land is full of seed.
f, I have a hard time accepting 'out of nothing' in an actual sense because of v2a and 'tohu wa-bohu.' Of course, in relation to a thriving world full of creatures, it was nothing. The same can be applied to Heb 11:2 about seen vs not seen. There was nothing to see when we first see earth. I believe the miracles of Jesus about storms and feedings are meant to be our model of what happened at creation. He spoke it and it was there, Ps 36.
g, H Ross did inestimable damage to Christian faith and the text when he messed with Hebrew. He interfered with both 'yom' and 'd'bar', drastically in both cases.
re Global Flood,
1, The correct term is cataclsym in 2 Peter 3, which means an entire disruption of everything in our sphere, and cannot possibly be local. Considering the distance Alaska is from the ancient near east (ANE), two official local statements should clear up any question about the scope of the flood:
a. "Mega-flora was suddenly encased in mile-deep ice." --AK State Museum. Anyone thinking clearly about that statement's components realizes that the global flood was extraordinary in scale.
b. "Alaska is the scrap-heap of continents." --book on the Geology of Alaska. Yes, it is a collision spot you can hardly imagine, and from all over earth. This would refer to the tectonic realities.
2, another way I answer limited flooding is by Ps 104. You see, it is difficult to tell if he is talking about creation or cataclysm. This should persuade us that it is global.
3, Jesus originally indicated that the end of his generation was the end of the world, Israel first then the gentiles. The global flood was referenced. The NT explains later (2 Peter 3 included) why there was a delay toward the rest of the world.
4, global cataclysm narratives. Enter this as a search on YT and I do not think you can reach the end of the list. It is unthinkable that so many diverse, unrelated cultures would have such narrative similarities unless the even were global. P Griffith-James cites 2 British Museum curators on such widespread narratives saying 'the explanation is only that of decomposing from an original, not the reverse.'
5, the inconsistency of Ager (Dr. D. Ager). NEW CATASTROPHISM has details of extraordinary cataclysm on each page, yet he 'religiously' denies a global event.
6, the Piute princess narrative, the oldest written native American account, has a complete picture of a giant population overwhelming normal human sized people, and it was savage (evil) and it sought domination. Considering how far this is from the ANE, it is hard to imagine the reality not being recent or global.
7, by the way, we should note that evidence about the cataclysm is in better condition than creation since it came later; the picture is more clear. This should be our first rational qualification about what we see around us as creation; what we see was extremely altered in the cataclysm.
re Genesis Apologetics,
I believe GA to be even stricter than I am about Genesis. I don't think they would like my treatment of 'tohu wa-bohu' and 'ekpalai' and 'sunestosa.' Also we should remember that there is terminology out there that is correct as far as events that took place (mega-sequence) but the time-frame could be way off. I believe science since Lyell and Hutton has been quite mistaken about rate x time.
Is Genesis History?
I'm not aware of anything deviant about IGH? I don't recall hearing about epochs for days of Genesis 1. I also don't think Tackett would warm to anything going on before 1:2.
re consistent
Grace and peace,
re: Age of The Earth,
I just looked through the (website ) pages and don't find an exact date, but I am sure a young age is meant. Here is my understanding from working for some decades on the actual meaning of some passages:
1, Creation Week is certainly recent. There is every reason to view all life forms as thriving and complete immediately. The Hebrew for 'fill' actually means 'swarm with swarms.' If there is an adjustment in time, it is about the speed of orbit after a collision. You may be familiar with Velikovsky's note on this, that a collision would reduce an orbit's speed. This should be factored into the longevity statements as well as the date of Creation Week. Slower orbits now mean high #s after such a collision for the same amount of time.
a, I have read that 'swarm with swarms' may supply an answer about other humans than the narrative records; there does, after all, have to be a sound literary explanation as to the wider population, because it is not stated.
2, in 'tohu wa-bohu' is an allowance that the sphere which we are on was in another state before creation week. It was dark, chaotic, watery. It was possibly judged, as you may know by comparing Jer 4:23 as Waltke did. But rather than being a problem this contains 2 solutions:
a, Rabbi Dr. Cassuto (FROM ADAM TO NOAH), who rescued the text from JEPD theory, has shown that there is a recitation structure to Genesis until we get to the part where Joseph wrote down his history, ch 39+. The first line of of each section is a title, a cue to a tribal student to recite through that section. That's why 1:1 is not a sentence, grammatically. For other titles, see 2:4, 5:1, 10:1.
b, that the opening accurately describes the local scene (our solar system). There is just the earth, without sunlight or a sun until day 3, but there is perhaps distant light, water, and land is brought upwards to separate water (Ps 104). And it is very soggy because it percolates a mist. See below on the 6 days matching 'tohu wa-bohu' at e.
c, it is consistent with 2 Peter 3 (next).
d, In my linguistic study of 2 Peter 3, 'ekpalai' (from of old) certainly seems to be set to contrast 'sunestosa' (to be formed like pottery). The universe is from of old; did he say it this way to refer to everything except our solar system? But the earth was formed like pottery, meaning, you have to have watery clay to start. There was. It is quite intriguing, but of course, there is only an implication that 'sunestosa' is more recent because of the broad statement about the distant universe.
e, the narrative of Gen 1 matches or 'answers' "tohu wa-bohu" perfectly: the various spheres of our planet are filled in logical sequence, and there is the intriguing short turn-around of the sun in place the morning that the land is full of seed.
f, I have a hard time accepting 'out of nothing' in an actual sense because of v2a and 'tohu wa-bohu.' Of course, in relation to a thriving world full of creatures, it was nothing. The same can be applied to Heb 11:2 about seen vs not seen. There was nothing to see when we first see earth. I believe the miracles of Jesus about storms and feedings are meant to be our model of what happened at creation. He spoke it and it was there, Ps 36.
g, H Ross did inestimable damage to Christian faith and the text when he messed with Hebrew. He interfered with both 'yom' and 'd'bar', drastically in both cases.
re Global Flood,
1, The correct term is cataclsym in 2 Peter 3, which means an entire disruption of everything in our sphere, and cannot possibly be local. Considering the distance Alaska is from the ancient near east (ANE), two official local statements should clear up any question about the scope of the flood:
a. "Mega-flora was suddenly encased in mile-deep ice." --AK State Museum. Anyone thinking clearly about that statement's components realizes that the global flood was extraordinary in scale.
b. "Alaska is the scrap-heap of continents." --book on the Geology of Alaska. Yes, it is a collision spot you can hardly imagine, and from all over earth. This would refer to the tectonic realities.
2, another way I answer limited flooding is by Ps 104. You see, it is difficult to tell if he is talking about creation or cataclysm. This should persuade us that it is global.
3, Jesus originally indicated that the end of his generation was the end of the world, Israel first then the gentiles. The global flood was referenced. The NT explains later (2 Peter 3 included) why there was a delay toward the rest of the world.
4, global cataclysm narratives. Enter this as a search on YT and I do not think you can reach the end of the list. It is unthinkable that so many diverse, unrelated cultures would have such narrative similarities unless the even were global. P Griffith-James cites 2 British Museum curators on such widespread narratives saying 'the explanation is only that of decomposing from an original, not the reverse.'
5, the inconsistency of Ager (Dr. D. Ager). NEW CATASTROPHISM has details of extraordinary cataclysm on each page, yet he 'religiously' denies a global event.
6, the Piute princess narrative, the oldest written native American account, has a complete picture of a giant population overwhelming normal human sized people, and it was savage (evil) and it sought domination. Considering how far this is from the ANE, it is hard to imagine the reality not being recent or global.
7, by the way, we should note that evidence about the cataclysm is in better condition than creation since it came later; the picture is more clear. This should be our first rational qualification about what we see around us as creation; what we see was extremely altered in the cataclysm.
re Genesis Apologetics,
I believe GA to be even stricter than I am about Genesis. I don't think they would like my treatment of 'tohu wa-bohu' and 'ekpalai' and 'sunestosa.' Also we should remember that there is terminology out there that is correct as far as events that took place (mega-sequence) but the time-frame could be way off. I believe science since Lyell and Hutton has been quite mistaken about rate x time.
Is Genesis History?
I'm not aware of anything deviant about IGH? I don't recall hearing about epochs for days of Genesis 1. I also don't think Tackett would warm to anything going on before 1:2.
re consistent
I think I've about covered it. I can't imagine any difference I would have about justification by Christ's righteousness. But the details about 'sunestosa' and 1:2 may be challenging. I would say that the 40 days of teaching by Christ between Resurrection and Pentecost were the best hand-off of what we believe and best seen in early Acts' quotes, better than the written letters. This may explain why we have Paul saying on miscellaneous topics that 'this I say, not the Lord' in a letter.
Grace and peace,
