How exactly are they concordist?
historically concordist, i.e., having to find a real week where such-and-such happened.
That seems to beg the question.
Concordist, as I understand its negative connotation, means reading modern scientific knowledge into Scripture. But, it doesn’t take modern scientific knowledge to think the 7 days are ordinary days (but it does to think they are 24-hour days). So that can’t be concordist, certainly not how Proclamation Day works or how Walton’s view works. They think it was real days, but not days corresponding to days in material creation, so they are not arguing that modern scientific knowledge is in Scripture.
What you seem to be saying is merely “that isn’t what I think it says,” which isn’t really connected at all to concordism in a negative sense.
What am I missing?
2 posts were split to a new topic: Introducing Chad from Middle Ground
@swamidass you are correct. A concordist interpretation is one that works hard at fitting scientific views into Genesis. Demanding a literal fulfillment of Genesis is the antithesis to concordism. In fact, I would argue that views which have figurative days are heavily concordist. I was once an Analogical Day adherent (convinced by Poythress), but I realized that I had no exegetical support for the shifting meaning of yom from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2, or thereafter.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Introducing Chad from Middle Ground
Concordism, as you know, has many definitions (I laid out many in my Biologos article: Discordant Views on Concordism - Articles - BioLogos). I don’t consider it necessarily negative in principle. I’m using a broader sense of the word in trying to harmonize the biblical text with history or science (whether that means reinterpreting the text to fit with modern notions or vice versa). Since I don’t think the text is trying to make specific historical or scientific claims, I find concordism (broadly construed) unattractive. I could be wrong, of course. But right now I don’t find the textual claims to be saying something definitive about the timing or order of creation (or proclamation). Walton, as far as I understand does see these as actual 24 hour days of God pronouncing functions. I don’t find this necessary.
He would not see them as 24 hour days (hours is a modern concept), but he does see them as ordinary days. His pretty clear about this, and I’ve asked him directly to be sure. For Walton, the 6 days of Genesis one are 6 ordinary days during which the temple is inaugurated.
So if we got in a time machine and went back, there would actually be a 6-day period in which this temple inauguration happened? That’s how I understand him.
Yes, that’s right. So (for Walton) the six days of the Genesis 1 text correspond to six actual days in history. I don’t think that makes him a concordist.
Of course, that view is subject to criticism. Perhaps he is wrong. But it is hard to see this idea as “concordist,” unless we just mean concordism to say “that guy interprets this passage with more historical reality than I think is warranted.” But in that case, the term “concordism” really distracts from the real questions of whether there is any warrant to that interpretive layer of the text.
Distracting or not, it is how “concordism” is sometimes used. In the end, I don’t think it’s necessary to find an actual six days in history where these events/proclamations happened.
As I’ve laid out, this is only one definition of concordism (and not the one I’m using).
@deuteroKJ so you aren’t willing to consider my literal exegesis because of supposed historical concordism, yet is not your figurative exegesis induced by scientific concordism? Would you be looking for a figurative interpretation of you had no access to modern science, billions of years, evolution, etc?
@swamidass this appears to be the classic Revelatory Day View. At one point I considered it, but was quickly deterred when confronted with Exodus 31:17, which tells us that the 6 days applies to God’s work (and by analogy our work week), not to Moses telling/revealing God’s work.
I considered your exegesis (I don’t know what “literal” means) and agreed with some points and disagreed with other points. Historical concordism is a larger issue, not settled by exegesis alone.
I don’t know what you mean by figurative exegesis, and would likely reject the identification. But no, my approach is not driven by scientific concordism.
I’m looking for authorial intent.
From the article…
However, the simplest way to understand the word “day” in Genesis 1 is a regular 24 hour day. As a traditional YEC, I stood by the fact the author says “and there was evening and there was morning” between each day, in a series of sequential days. I still stand by this fact! Nowhere else in scripture is such a convention used to convey long undefined periods.
The proviso I see, is that poetic and metaphoric use of words and entire concepts, in English, Hebrew, or any other language, is not constrained by dictionary definitions or other usage in the language. The use of a particular image can be unique to a given work. So evening and morning could legitimately be a poetic flourish.
I’ve got to do a Zoom meeting now but sometime soon I hope to describe my approach to Exodus 31:17— that the emphasis is not so much on the YOM/days per se as on the sevens. And that theme of sevens is not just about the sevens of days but the sevens of years (sabbatical years) and sevens of weeks of years (culminating in the Jubilee year.)
Yes it’s possible that day and night are used metaphorically, and we see some instances where they are used as such. But the integration of sequential ordinal days, and mornings and evenings, leaves most poetic attempts wanting. At best, I suppose the entire account could be a metaphorical parable of a man (who happens to be God) creating the universe in 6 days (ie the Analogical day view). I actually held that view for a while until I tried to fit Genesis 1-2 back into the narrative of Genesis 3-50. That’s when it falls apart.
I’ll be interested to hear it. From my reading of biblical theology, it seems that all patterns of sevens, including sevens of years, come from the seven in Genesis 1 and not the other way around. It’s a work-rest motif. But I’m open.