Is Genesis 1 an 'interruption' of nature?

[EarlyActs]

An 'interruption' of nature is how Lewis developed his two kinds of miracles view, those that are in nature as we know it, and those that intervene. It is a 'natural' miracle that the grape vine can turn water and minerals into the juice. It is a 'supernatural' miracle that Jesus made this happen spontaneously, instantly in Canaan.

Dr. Schaeffer quoted the philosopher Bezzant about neo-orthodox theology because, aside from other mistakes, they guy saw that 'when I am told that it is precisely its immunity from proof which secures the Christian proclamation from the charge of being mythological, ...I call nonsense by its name.'
TGWIT, p94.

It wasn't that proof of Gen 1 had failed; these theologians view was that 'you don't bother with it.'

Most YEC views are a total intervention from the first moment; there is nothing natural in existence prior to Day 1, to them. I have wondered if their view was 'well, it is a big ask to have people accept all the across-the-board claims of Gen 1 immediately; so let's get it over with, and hold the fort, and if they desert uniformitarianism and join us, great.'

But the text is a bit different. Not that there is biological evolution, but that there is some softening of this ask. 1, the passage is only about the local objects as 'shama' shows itself to be. A better word is the read-able objects, because they provided messages, and a few things that were more distant were meant.

2, Day 1 is after a period that is likely defined by the LY distance which the earth was from 'the spreading out.' One marker of this is the utter blackness the moment before the first light arrives. Should we then ask the public to believe there was an extraordinary light when the text went to the detail about the blackness? I think not!

3, the LXX rabbis believed that tohu was referring to being submerged. This is not only featured later in Gen 1, it is in Ps 104. There are a number of things introduced in opening lines that are shown completed in the following days:
*brooding (like a hen) over the earth, then completion by day 6
*the earth in darkness, awaiting the arrival of starlight on Day 1, which Sirius has marked in nearly every culture since the beginning, and then the placement of complete lighting on later days
*the land submerged, and then pushed up, found all over the earth.

I mention these because there is both the 'natural' and 'supernatural.' But the natural was interrupted to make our habitable system, just like fish were not where the disciples tried, but then were moments later by order of the King, Jn 21. The verb for all our local objects is that they were placed by hand, quite different from the randomness of 'spreading out' which is in some cases the same term for casting seed. The natural was never complete enough for the human community, or any of the life forms.

 

[John Bauer]

Is Genesis 1 an ‘interruption’ of nature?

No.

 

[EarlyActs]

No.

Most of it is; the established nature that is in the text is before Day 1, or Day 2 if Day 1 proves to be arriving starlight. For the other parts of established nature in Gen 1 before Day 1, see my platform of my young, local creation week view else where at this forum. There is a range of lifeless time that can be established. This is based on word choice, on limiting the meaning to the local/readable celestial objects, on the custody of the text, on the method of verbal recitation documented by Cassuto.

I'm not interested in someone saying Gen 1 is liturgical poetry that doesn't reflect ordinary meaning, because then there is gender confusion and it 'saves lives' to mutilate children sexually.

Mod Hat: Stike through is violation of rule 2.2 as it misrepresents the view of poster it is addressed to.

 

[atpollard]

Genesis 1 is a polemic against contemporary creation myths and an introduction to the WHO of creation. Planetology and evolutionary biology are irrelevant to its goal.

As an example, Genesis 1 opens with a single eternally extant GOD exerting complete control over the very elemental forces from which other myths claim the pantheon of ‘gods’ were born.

 

[EarlyActs]

Genesis 1 is a polemic against contemporary creation myths and an introduction to the WHO of creation. Planetology and evolutionary biology are irrelevant to its goal.

As an example, Genesis 1 opens with a single eternally extant GOD exerting complete control over the very elemental forces from which other myths claim the pantheon of ‘gods’ were born.

I used to think so too. What are some reasons you think so?

 

[atpollard]

I used to think so too. What are some reasons you think so?

Several things point to it. (In no particular order)

HISTORICAL COMPARISON: Much ado has been made about the similarities between Genesis 1 and other ancient creation mythologies. I have read them and I found the points of dis-similarity to be more significant (theologically speaking) than their points of agreement. As an example, the “waters/deep” giving birth to the gods, who then used something (the corpse of this proto-deity?) to create the world from. Genesis, in contrast, places GOD eternal and “above” that from which “gods” are created and commanding everything with the authority of His words (God said). This seems like a deliberate shot across the bow of the contemporary neighbors of Moses day. God (I AM) does not play.

SCIENTIFIC NONSENSE: Human beings are reasonably good story-tellers and quite capable with effort of creating a story that is internally, logically, self-consistent. It does not require a modern knowledge of a heliocentric solar system to spot that creating light and days before creating the sun (the observed source of light) is “a problem”. I do not care what explanation anyone offers … that misses the point. (Assume for the sake of argument that your favorite explanation is correct and you have convinced me to agree with you). If God had intended Genesis 1 as a basic, historic reference to Planetary Evolution (how God formed our Solar System and Planets) and Biology (how God created the modern diversity of plant and animal life) … would God have not taken more care with details like “days without a sun” and “light and dark” without a sun. Even if the story was written by men and not God, men would have gotten that detail right because men can see the sun rise and light the sky. Therefore, SCIENCE is not the information that GOD was intending to convey. Genesis 1 is not a “book of HOW”.

REVELATION OF GENESIS 1: What information does Genesis 1 actually reveal? It teaches us (the reader) most of the important Truths needed to understand the rest of scripture … truths about WHO GOD IS. God always existed and God is God alone (there is no beginning for God and there are no others). God is not merely the creator, God exerts absolute authority over creation … God says it and it is so! God operates by DIVIDING and separating … doing so creates room/space for God to speak something new into existence. Genesis 1 only BEGINS this pattern, it is not the end. God divided Abram from the rest of Mesopotamian Civilization and “speaks into being” a chosen people and a promise for all people (Jesus, the seed - singular - of Abraham). We see the first hints of the trinitarian reality (God divides three times and fills three times; then God [plural] makes man in “our” image). Spirit floats above the water, hands shape ‘clay’ into Adam, lips breathe the (ruach) breath/spirit into nostrils to make man alive and “in our image”.

So the combination of what Genesis 1 reveals and what it ignores leads me to accept that its’ “purpose” is that which it accomplishes rather than that which it fails to accomplish (without mental gymnastics).

 

[EarlyActs]

atpollard wrote:

This seems like a deliberate shot across the bow of the contemporary neighbors of Moses day.

Or even better: it pre-dates all that. If you believe in the ordinary reading of Genesis, you should be saying that it is Gen 1 is Adam's recollection of God explaining to him what happened the days he was gone. That would many centuries before Egypt.

 

[EarlyActs]

Several things point to it. (In no particular order)

HISTORICAL COMPARISON: Much ado has been made about the similarities between Genesis 1 and other ancient creation mythologies. I have read them and I found the points of dis-similarity to be more significant (theologically speaking) than their points of agreement. As an example, the “waters/deep” giving birth to the gods, who then used something (the corpse of this proto-deity?) to create the world from. Genesis, in contrast, places GOD eternal and “above” that from which “gods” are created and commanding everything with the authority of His words (God said). This seems like a deliberate shot across the bow of the contemporary neighbors of Moses day. God (I AM) does not play.

SCIENTIFIC NONSENSE: Human beings are reasonably good story-tellers and quite capable with effort of creating a story that is internally, logically, self-consistent. It does not require a modern knowledge of a heliocentric solar system to spot that creating light and days before creating the sun (the observed source of light) is “a problem”. I do not care what explanation anyone offers … that misses the point. (Assume for the sake of argument that your favorite explanation is correct and you have convinced me to agree with you). If God had intended Genesis 1 as a basic, historic reference to Planetary Evolution (how God formed our Solar System and Planets) and Biology (how God created the modern diversity of plant and animal life) … would God have not taken more care with details like “days without a sun” and “light and dark” without a sun. Even if the story was written by men and not God, men would have gotten that detail right because men can see the sun rise and light the sky. Therefore, SCIENCE is not the information that GOD was intending to convey. Genesis 1 is not a “book of HOW”.

REVELATION OF GENESIS 1: What information does Genesis 1 actually reveal? It teaches us (the reader) most of the important Truths needed to understand the rest of scripture … truths about WHO GOD IS. God always existed and God is God alone (there is no beginning for God and there are no others). God is not merely the creator, God exerts absolute authority over creation … God says it and it is so! God operates by DIVIDING and separating … doing so creates room/space for God to speak something new into existence. Genesis 1 only BEGINS this pattern, it is not the end. God divided Abram from the rest of Mesopotamian Civilization and “speaks into being” a chosen people and a promise for all people (Jesus, the seed - singular - of Abraham). We see the first hints of the trinitarian reality (God divides three times and fills three times; then God [plural] makes man in “our” image). Spirit floats above the water, hands shape ‘clay’ into Adam, lips breathe the (ruach) breath/spirit into nostrils to make man alive and “in our image”.

So the combination of what Genesis 1 reveals and what it ignores leads me to accept that its’ “purpose” is that which it accomplishes rather than that which it fails to accomplish (without mental gymnastics).

atpollard wrote:
Therefore, SCIENCE is not the information that GOD was intending to convey. Genesis 1 is not a “book of HOW”.

Glad he remembered there were 2 genders, then. You see, it needs to be authentic to a needed degree. The 2nd century BC rabbis translated 'without form' as "submerged". When you see that, and read that no light at all was bouncing off its water surface, what do you conclude? It would be the same thing you would conclude anytime you found that. No light arrived til Day 1.

 

[EarlyActs]

Several things point to it. (In no particular order)

HISTORICAL COMPARISON: Much ado has been made about the similarities between Genesis 1 and other ancient creation mythologies. I have read them and I found the points of dis-similarity to be more significant (theologically speaking) than their points of agreement. As an example, the “waters/deep” giving birth to the gods, who then used something (the corpse of this proto-deity?) to create the world from. Genesis, in contrast, places GOD eternal and “above” that from which “gods” are created and commanding everything with the authority of His words (God said). This seems like a deliberate shot across the bow of the contemporary neighbors of Moses day. God (I AM) does not play.

SCIENTIFIC NONSENSE: Human beings are reasonably good story-tellers and quite capable with effort of creating a story that is internally, logically, self-consistent. It does not require a modern knowledge of a heliocentric solar system to spot that creating light and days before creating the sun (the observed source of light) is “a problem”. I do not care what explanation anyone offers … that misses the point. (Assume for the sake of argument that your favorite explanation is correct and you have convinced me to agree with you). If God had intended Genesis 1 as a basic, historic reference to Planetary Evolution (how God formed our Solar System and Planets) and Biology (how God created the modern diversity of plant and animal life) … would God have not taken more care with details like “days without a sun” and “light and dark” without a sun. Even if the story was written by men and not God, men would have gotten that detail right because men can see the sun rise and light the sky. Therefore, SCIENCE is not the information that GOD was intending to convey. Genesis 1 is not a “book of HOW”.

REVELATION OF GENESIS 1: What information does Genesis 1 actually reveal? It teaches us (the reader) most of the important Truths needed to understand the rest of scripture … truths about WHO GOD IS. God always existed and God is God alone (there is no beginning for God and there are no others). God is not merely the creator, God exerts absolute authority over creation … God says it and it is so! God operates by DIVIDING and separating … doing so creates room/space for God to speak something new into existence. Genesis 1 only BEGINS this pattern, it is not the end. God divided Abram from the rest of Mesopotamian Civilization and “speaks into being” a chosen people and a promise for all people (Jesus, the seed - singular - of Abraham). We see the first hints of the trinitarian reality (God divides three times and fills three times; then God [plural] makes man in “our” image). Spirit floats above the water, hands shape ‘clay’ into Adam, lips breathe the (ruach) breath/spirit into nostrils to make man alive and “in our image”.

So the combination of what Genesis 1 reveals and what it ignores leads me to accept that its’ “purpose” is that which it accomplishes rather than that which it fails to accomplish (without mental gymnastics).

atpollard wrote:
Genesis 1 only BEGINS this pattern, it is not the end.

Very good! No disagreement there! But I found even more details like that. Partly by seeing what Rabbi Cassuto pointed out about the verbal recitation structure, what it does to its form, and to less important topics. So helpful!

re mental gymnastics
I'm not young, but by writing scripts and analysing them I may have kept myself more fit for noticing connecting details in a passage.

 

[makesends]

atpollard wrote:
Genesis 1 only BEGINS this pattern, it is not the end.

Very good! No disagreement there! But I found even more details like that. Partly by seeing what Rabbi Cassuto pointed out about the verbal recitation structure, what it does to its form, and to less important topics. So helpful!

re mental gymnastics
I'm not young, but by writing scripts and analysing them I may have kept myself more fit for noticing connecting details in a passage.

For what it is worth, even the most able minds make assumptions from which to draw their reasoning. Some degree of bias is unavoidable. Thus, that one sees dots to connect does not of itself mean much. I read large amounts of scripture at a sitting, and have seen dots to connect, coincidences, concordant references, and the Heart of God throughout, but I can't just make up my mind from that, nor from what I think is the Spirit of God speaking to my spirit. Look, for example, at numerology. That there is something to find doesn't make it even useful. It is certainly a distraction from the pursuit of Christ.

 

[EarlyActs]

For what it is worth, even the most able minds make assumptions from which to draw their reasoning. Some degree of bias is unavoidable. Thus, that one sees dots to connect does not of itself mean much. I read large amounts of scripture at a sitting, and have seen dots to connect, coincidences, concordant references, and the Heart of God throughout, but I can't just make up my mind from that, nor from what I think is the Spirit of God speaking to my spirit. Look, for example, at numerology. That there is something to find doesn't make it even useful. It is certainly a distraction from the pursuit of Christ.

Proof is valuable, and helps a person along to believe in Christ. Just follow early Mark!

 

[EarlyActs]

Could John Bauer please summarize what Lewis "Two Lectures" is saying in a couple lines. I'm not looking for what he believes about the issue of origin but what the essay is saying.

 

[makesends]

Proof is valuable, and helps a person along to believe in Christ. Just follow early Mark!

I'm not going to follow Early, Acts.

Nor do I seek too early a conclusion to a question. I am sure, for example, (and have been for probably 30 years), that the New Jerusalem of Rev 21 is the Bride of Christ. There's just too many coincidences and hints and connectable dots throughout the Bible for it to merely be 'a place'. There're too many references to the specifics duplicated or restated. So, I say, it is US, the Church, the Dwelling Place of God. BUT, while I say that, it is not of itself what I teach, because I cannot trust myself, nor even what I sometimes think is the Spirit's witness. I trust the Scriptures, and continually return to them to learn more. And here is where Orthodoxy is useful, because so many have gone before us, describing the way of God's grace, and glorious plan, and force of Sovereignty. If what I believe is not Orthodox doctrine, it is suspect. I don't trust it.

My personal opinion has been and is more than a blessing, but my way of thinking is suspect.

 

[EarlyActs]

You are not going to follow what?

 

[Hazelelponi]

...

 

[John Bauer]

Could John Bauer please summarize what Lewis "Two Lectures" is saying in a couple lines. I'm not looking for what he believes about the issue of origin but what the essay is saying.

As I understand it, Lewis is saying that a sequence cannot explain its own origin. (I had said this in the thread about this essay, “that ‘absolute beginnings’ cannot be explained by appealing to processes that presuppose what they are meant to explain.”) For Lewis, the “trick” lies in presenting the sequence as self-sufficient, ignoring that the origin of the sequence itself cannot logically be part of the sequence.

 

[makesends]

You are not going to follow what?

A member on this site, going by the handle, @EarlyActs —Just joshing you, btw.

As for what you intended, I follow what I believe, or, more accurately, I try to. I'm not so much into "following early" as you suggested, as my opinions change with the wind, and as I'm very much not in the habit of divination of "the Holy Spirit's leading".

 

[EarlyActs]

You are not going to follow what?

A member on this site, going by the handle, @EarlyActs —Just joshing you, btw.

As for what you intended, I follow what I believe, or, more accurately, I try to. I'm not so much into "following early" as you suggested, as my opinions change with the wind, and as I'm very much not in the habit of divination of "the Holy Spirit's leading".

That had to do with following Mark's sense of proof in the early part of the book. It's loaded with providing proof, apart from the 1st miracle of ch 2.