No, I don’t think it is assuming that at all. As I expressed earlier, the Bible is not a science text. It is not precise enough to be a science text. It doesn’t use technical terminology common in science. It makes no attempt to quantify reductionist components of nature.
The Bible is best thought of as a history book. Genesis 1 records the history of creation, including the order of appearances (light before plant life, for example). Humans in the time of the Exodus did not know about photosynthesis. The human author of Genesis didn’t know that light was necessary before plant life, but the divine author did know. You might want to say it’s just a coincidence that the author of Genesis happened to get that right. But there are a large number of such coincidences in Genesis 1. It’s like taking a pair of dice and rolling boxcars 12 times in a row.
I have to agree with Dr. Carlson. There’s no way Genesis 1 was written solely by pre-scientific humans.
Maybe, but what kind of history book? The Old Testament seems to me to be a history of ANE people’s encounter with God. The New Testament seems to me to be a history of Jesus and early church. What I don’t see is an indication that the Bible is actually saying “light was necessary before plant life”. I think this is the kind of “leap” to scientific claims that @deuteroKJ is talking about.
You are correct. The Bible doesn’t make the claim. Rather, scientifically knowledgeable people read it and say “Wow! The Bible is fully inline with what we know about photosynthesis! That’s amazing!”
And it is amazing. Remember, we must interpret the Bible based on authorial intent. But the Bible is different from other literature in that it has two authors. The human authors may have one intent in mind while God has more than one intent in mind. Many Bible prophecies have a double fulfillment. And while the human author of Genesis did not know science, the divine author did. There is nothing forced or unnatural about giving that truth its due weight.
But it’s, in my mind at least, impossible to prove. It’s a hindsight view and the tendency seems to be to look for things that may or may not match up.
As an example, the Bible at times seems to match up with geocentrism and so by your logic it seems like we should say that God, since he knows the universe, is giving us a cosmology. But then after science indicates that geocentrism is incorrect, we have to adjust God’s “intent”. I want to give God’s truth more weight than that.
So which “science” does the Bible give us? 2,000 BC science? AD 30 science? AD 1687 science? AD 1859 science? AD 2018 science? I feel like it’s chronological arrogance to assume that “modern” science was secretly built into the Bible.
That’s why I suggest using a probability analysis. Look at all the items in Genesis 1 that we know are correct from science. Then ask “What is the probability all of these statements could be in line with modern science without it being intentional?”
That’s the claim, correct? You are saying “Sure, plants need light for photosynthesis, but that’s just a coincidence that Genesis 1 got that right.”
Isn’t that what you are saying? If so, then I challenge you to make a list of all the scientifically correct claims in Genesis 1 and see if you think pre-scientific man could have stumbled into that many coincidences without intentional guidance from God.
But Genesis 1 doesn’t talk about photosynthesis, it just orders light before plants/animals. That could be for many non-scientific reasons. Light/dark is more cosmic/foundational and takes priority, or similarly maybe the author is “building” the story by starting with less complex and going to more complex to illustrate that God created all things. Or maybe because the ancients observed that many plants grow better in light. None of those take any scientific knowledge of photosynthesis. If we go by probabilities then I think there are many options that aren’t reading modern science into Genesis 1, and hence your reading is the less likely.
So by “testing” you meant history not science? Then why did you quote a scientist? is Carlson’s statement based on history or science? (I’m assuming, then, you disagree with Hugh Ross, when he finds scientific claims in Genesis?)
Light before plants? But this wasn’t sunlight, which only came on Day 4 (no, I don’t find Ross’ position tenable here). Thus, it’s apples and oranges between the Days 1-3 and our reality. How do we know they didn’t know sunlight was necessary for plant life?
Such as? There are also several things that don’t fit…starting with plants before a sun. Also, whales before mammals. Oh, and an earth (v. 2) before creation itself (beginning in v. 3; yes we’d have to get into the syntax of vv. 1-3).
I leave it aside why we should label Gen 1 as “history” in any meaningful or strict sense.
This sort of language gets me uncomfortable if it’s not explained and nuanced. The divine intent isn’t generally unremoved from the the human intent. Yes, prophecies may have double fulfillment (and a whole lot crazier options), but Gen 1 isn’t prophecy, so the two can’t be conflated. If you think all genres work the same like this, then there will an intractable gulf between our approaches.
I quoted a scientist because scientist are more informed regarding the history of nature than historians are. Historians are generally interested in recorded history, not natural history. And no, I don’t disagree with Hugh Ross regarding Genesis. I disagree with the idea that Genesis is a science book. But as a book that records the history of nature, it makes claims that can be tested by science.
Yes, it was sunlight. This just shows that you don’t understand Ross’s view.
Again, this shows that you don’t understand Ross’s view. You are asking for a new thread if you want me to explain all the claims in Genesis 1 that fits modern science. I can put together an OP but it will take some time.
I’m not conflating Genesis 1 with prophecy. I’m simply using prophecy as an illustration. The point is that a right understanding of inspiration admits there are two authors: the human author and the divine author. You seem to think if Genesis 1 is scientifically correct that the human author had to know science. I don’t make that claim. Rather, Genesis 1 proves that the text is inspired by God, who knows nature better than we do, because there is no way the text could be as scientifically accurate as it is without God.
It’s been awhile since I’ve read/listened to Ross’ thorough treatment of Gen 1. What I recall (please correct me if I’m wrong) is that he sees the sun created in v. 1 with “heavens and earth.” Day 4 does not describe the creation of the sun, but the time the sun broke through the atmosphere (or whatever) and was first visible. If this is a correct summary, then I disagree with this interpretation and consider it forcing the text to fit the science.
I seem to also recall that Ross sees overlapping of the creation “days,” though I don’t remember the details. (If so, I also disagree with this interpretation.)
BTW, this wasn’t primarily about Ross’ view, but statements you had made. But I brought Ross in, so it’s fair game.
That’s up to you. It might be interesting to the crowd. I don’t know if I’ll have to time to engage it when it comes up, however.
OK. But how the reality of human & divine authors manifests itself in different genres matters. I basically agree with you about prophecy (as far as double fulfillment and the divine authorial intent occasionally going beyond the human perspective). But this illustration may or may not have anything to say about early Genesis. I see what you’re doing, and I think we simply have different hermeneutical approaches here (which is fine).
Possibly or almost correct. But I would want to tease out “if Genesis 1 is scientifically correct.” First, “science” here assumes modern science, so it’s anachronistic to apply “scientifically correct” to an ancient text. Second, this seems to assume scientific claims are being made by the author. I don’t see it this way. As I understand you, you see the divine author intended to teach certain things that would later be verified by modern science. These things were either beyond the human author, or divinely revealed to him, or written down and passed onto him. Is this correct? If this is so, then if affirms my above statement of different hermeneutical assumptions.
We can agree to disagree here. Clarity of one’s position is always helpful, even if agreement can’t be achieved.
Perhaps it would be easier to think of Genesis 1 speaking to natural history. There is no reason that ancient writing about natural history cannot fit modern science. Again, as I’ve said before, Genesis is not a science text. It’s doesn’t give us the detail and precision for that. But where it speaks about nature, it is accurate and true.
Again, I think it is better to see it as claim about natural history that can be tested by modern science. I think that view is fair to the divine author and the text holds up very well, much better than it could by coincidence alone.
This is closer but it really isn’t forcing the text to fit science. It requires only a change from the frame of reference a modern reader would assume to the frame of reference an ancient reader would assume. Once that change is made, everything else falls into place.
I agree with the earth-bound perspective, but this view requires more than that. It presumes, at least, (1) concordism, (2) seeing v. 1 as a creative act prior to the 6 Days, and (3) a resumptive understanding of vv. 16-17 (“and God made the two lights…”) (or one could follow Walton’s functional view…but that would undermine everything else you’re proposing). I reject all these on exegetical and hermeneutical grounds. But, I admit, they’re not impossible and each enjoys traditional and scholarly support.
I’ve recently begun using Plinko (from The Price is Right) as an illustration for biblical interpretation. As the disk drops it hits several spokes, each of which alters the direction and future potential options. Likewise, as we read the text, we are faced with a series of questions/options, not all simultaneous. So, one decision (however confident) opens and closes options on other questions. This is why good and godly people disagree…and how there can be several viable options. I certainly believe you are working faithfully in your model. As I stated elsewhere, while I do seek the truth as best I can, much of my energy is understanding the options (big and small) and trying to decide where options fit on a probability scale and overall faithfulness to the biblical vision and orthodox Christianity. I admit my personal opinions are provisional and open to correction (i.e., I’m not 100% confident on each decision, and sometimes it’s closer to 60/40 or even 50/50).
I’m glad that you agree with the earth-bound perspective. This really is the key.
Concordism is taught in Scripture. It is both a doctrine and a responsibility of Bible interpreters. God is the Author of both the Bible and Nature. God is not a God of confusion and God cannot lie. The Bible and Nature cannot be in conflict. If we think they are, it is because we misunderstand one or the other or both. There are Bible-confident concordists and science-confident concordists, but if we are Christian, then we have to be concordists. Railing against concordism isn’t helpful.
I think it is possible to see v1 as prior to the six days. It is also possible to see it as a topic sentence for the six days of creation. But in either case, it is inline with modern cosmology that the universe had a beginning.
I’m not sure what you mean by a “resumptive understanding.”
First of all, I’d like to thank @Ronald_Cram, @deuteroKJ, and @Jordan for engaging in a prolonged, insightful, and thoughtful exchange on a complex and contentious topic. This is really the best of what the forum is supposed to offer. Keep it up.
Just a couple thoughts…
As a person who does probability analysis for a living, it does not appear feasible to do so here.
@Ronald_Cram you seem to be taking a dual author view of scripture.
Some of the pushback you are facing is that most current scholars do not take that view. It is not uncommon outside of academia (e.g. @anon46279830 takes a similar tact), but right now authorial intent is ascendant.
This list of links is helpful in unpacking some of the differences between @Ronald_Cram and @deuteroKJ, and the arguments/history of why authorial intent is currently the dominant way of seeing this in academia. I’d encourage everyone to take a look at them.
I’ve said enough on these posts and in my BioLogos article about the different ways “concordism” can be used. I’m not railing against it (I agree we are all concordists to some degree), but trying to gain clarity on what one means by it and how it applies to a specific text. If Gen 1 is not making historical or scientific claims in the details, then there is no conflict, i.e., nothing to bring into concord.
And there are other possibilities, such as v. 1 being a dependent clause to either v. 2 (cf. NRSV) or v. 3 (cf. NJPS; this is the one I favor). But what’s possible is not what’s probable. (There’s also the issue of where v. 2 fits into the temporal sequence, but I’m not getting into that now.)
If were just talking about the beginning of the universe then fine. What’s at issue are the details. (But it’s also possible Gen 1 is not talking about the absolute beginning of space-time-matter, though Scripture elsewhere teaches that.)
Meaning it’s going back in time to speak of what had been made before v. 14.
Joshua, I agree that these are interesting papers. I’m a big fan of Walter Kaiser and he has written some nice things about a booklet I wrote. I’m also a big fan of Bruce Waltke, especially his work on the book of Psalms. I don’t actually see their views as being very different from each other. Both would claim they hold to authorial intent. Regarding Genesis 1, Walter Kaiser has endorsed the interpretation of Hugh Ross.
In fact, the author, Dan Fabricatore, identifies as holding to authorial intent even though he doesn’t identify with View A. His first statement about his own position is parenthetical:
“(This paints me as holding to sensus plenior, but with the likes of S. Lewis Johnson, I am not in too bad a company).” Page 3.
This is View B, the Divine Intent - Human Words School described on Page 2 and the view I have identified for myself. The author of Genesis had no idea that the words he wrote would later be supported by science.
In his conclusion, Fabricatore writes, “I do hold to authorial intent. All that the Old Testament writer intended for his audience, he expressed in the text. I simply hold that the New Testament writers, under the influence of the Holy Spirit applied those passages to their own circumstances in a way that might not have been fully known to the Old Testament writer when he penned his words.”
I agree. I hold to authorial intent. I just recognize there are two authors.