This post is relevant:
If note, the work we done on Adam shows they are wrong in that assessment that of a scientific error. Also who is right, you or them? How could we know?
Because you are tying Scripture (which you think as infallible) to a specific hermeneutic that constrains the science, your assessment of scientific evidence is no longer unbiased. Now youâre obligated to defend giant impact moon theory because you believe the Bible teaches it. All scientists have biases, but youâre deliberately introducing big additional biases.
In your opinion, what would be an example of a scientific finding regarding the atmosphere of the early Earth that would definitely falsify your interpretation of scripture?
1 Like
Iâm sorry, Joshua, I donât understand what you are saying here. Who is wrong? What scientific error?
The artiticle I linked says:
A review of how the 12 elements of the biblical creation story compare to science.
- Nine are scientifically correct, and just two are in the wrong order: birds and plants.
- One is scientifically wrong: the creation of man.
- Two are not relevant to science â the hallowed seventh day, and the second mention of light.
The one that is scientifically wrong in their estimation, the creation of man, weâve shown here is not necessarily in conflict with science.
1 Like
I donât believe the Bible teaches the moon-forming impact. Iâm saying that the evidence for the moon-forming impact fits with what the Bible teaches. Also, science and the Bible can learn from each other. For example, Bible scholars have learned from science. Both Luther and Calvin condemned Copernicus because he taught that the earth moves around the sun. Luther and Calvin misunderstood a couple of passages of scripture. We know that now. No modern Bible scholar pleads for geocentrism. Similarly, science has falsified the young earth creationist view and that view will do the way of geocentrism. But scientists have also admitted that the Bible arrived at the idea the universe had a beginning before scientists did. Also, archaeologists have successfully used the Bible to decide where to search for certain finds. I believe physicists and chemists can use the Bible to learn where to look for their discoveries.
Iâll give you another example. Origin of life researchers have the idea that abiogenesis has to be true. They are driven by their philosophy and so they havenât held to the standards of science and sought to falsify their own ideas. In other words, their philosophy is limiting their search for truth. If they were to falsify abiogenesis, then they would open the door to real science in origin of life.
The first idea to falsify Genesis 1 would be to show that the universe is eternal into the past. That would be the best way to falsify Genesis. Regarding the atmosphere, if they could show that our atmosphere was always clear and oxygenated, then that would falsify Genesis 1:2. Or if they could show that the ocean never covered the entire planet, then that also would falsify Genesis 1:2.
Okay, I follow you now. Yes the article is relevant and pretty much proves my point that Genesis 1 is far too accurate scientifically to have been written by man. I appreciate your contribution to the science.
The article did not really even mention the strongest evidence for the claim Genesis 1 could not have been written by man alone - that the author got the initial conditions correct. The fact the order is basically correct is powerful also.
The fact a couple of items are considered to be out of order is not terribly problematic for me. Future discoveries may cause the science to be revised.
You still havenât engaged the challenge of the Koran.
No, I did respond. I donât think the analogy you are trying to draw between what I and the author of the HuffPost article are doing is anything at all like the Koran apologists. Hereâs what I wrote:
The statements in Genesis 1 are clear and could be falsified by science. There is no way to falsify the claims of the Koran apologists.
I too am thankful for the interchange.
My quere iw regarding Gen 1 not the whole Bible.
I agree with Jesus, but none of these appear in Gen 1.
Mere assertion.
Weâre only talking Gen 1 here.
[quote=âRonald_Cram, post:8, topic:993â]
3. On what grounds should âyomâ be translated âepoch?â
This is argument from authority, but OK (though itâs the minority report in the discipline). Archer, yes. KaiserâIâm aware of his support on the John Ankerburg show (specifically that Days 1-3 canât be literal), but I know of nowhere else (Iâd love to know of other references to his work on Gen 1). Waltke was a theistic evolutionist (in his later years), which usually assumes a non-concordist reading, so Iâd love to know where he makes such a claim (especially in his later years).
I agree that this discounts a âliteralâ reading, but it does not necessarily comply with an âepochâ reading since it also complies with a non-concordist reading.
Mere assertion. What exactly does âhistorical narrativeâ mean as a genre anyway? I know itâs common in herneneutical books, but itâs not a clear genre in any useful sense. History is not a genre but a way of referring to the past (with several levels of specificity). Narrative is too general.
another mere assertion
The issue is not what God knows, but what our expectations should be of the human authorâs intent (and if the divine authorial intent seeks to give natural history/science details beyond the human authorâs understanding).
Yah a problem with NJPS. Here it is: When God began to create heaven and earthâthe earth being unformed and void with darkness over the surface of the deep and a wind from God sweeping over the waterâGod said, âLet there be light,â; and there was light.
This presupposes that the sun exists in v. 2, which I donât see in the text (since the sun is created on Day 4).
All this assumes scientific concordism.
Using âplanetâ (and perhaps âoceansâ) is anachronistic to the perspective of the ancient world.
Not that easy. ANE creation accounts disagree among themselves on important things. Also these ANE accounts pre-date Genesis, and it looks like Genesis is written in response to them (not just the true story of what really happened). And, where did these other nations âgetâ their creation stories (which involve way more than âminor discrepanciesâ)?
I understand the metaphor of nature as a âbook,â but this can be taken too far. After all, nature is not really a book so we must see the limits to the metaphor.
Again, you are assuming scientific concordism. But if the biblical author(s) do not mean to make a scientific claim, you are wrong to seek concordance. A straightforward reading does suggest that the sun was created on Day 4.
Still assuming concordism. And, thatâs all their saying? See my discussion of what âlightâ really means for Day 1.
Correct, we donât know. And we should be open to other options than the ones mentioned.
doesnât answer the question
My Bible says for Day 4, âAnd God made the two great lightsâ (v. 16). This is a far cry from your explanation. You see the creation of the sun as an act of v.1 not Day 4.
Kenneth, @deuteroKJ I have been lurking and now against my better judgement I want to weigh in. I know there is a lot of overlap between some forms of bara and asah, but the text does not say that the sun was âcreatedâ on day four. It was âasahâ, made, which as you know has a wide variety of meanings. Even just setting in place. The sun was created before the first day when God created the heavens and the earth. The only âcreatesâ are in verse 1, day five, and the creation of man on day six. Everything else uses another verb.
I agree the light spoken into existence is not primarily speaking of sunlight, but I believe each of those days uses words that have a double-meaning- one for the land below and the other for the land above. Earth copies the eternal realm. To make it all about scientific accuracy is missing the point, but its not inaccurate either. Its not trying to be a science text but its still not wrong on the science.
But what if one day a strong piece of evidence against the moon-forming impact model shows up? Does the Bible now teach falsehood?
Genesis 1:2, in my reading, doesnât really say that the waters covered the whole Earth. (Maybe you could correct me by giving an argument based on Hebrew for this.) It only says that âthe Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.â If there was never a time that the whole Earth was covered with water you could just say that the verse would still âfitâ with modern science as long as oceans (waters) of some kind existed. Sure, the Earth was âformlessâ and âvoidâ, but one could interpret that in many ways as well. I would say that this reinterpretation is no different from your position that a âhazyâ but not âopaqueâ atmosphere doesnât falsify âlet there be lightâ. Do you see where Iâm going with this?
1 Like
True, so why suppose âcreateâ is limited to bara? Are we talking 6 days of creation or only 2 (+ v.1, whatever that is referencing)? Iâm not using âcreateâ in any special sense. I agree bara has a nuance, but simply using âcreateâ is not it.
This is an assumption, and it also assumes that v. 1 is prior to the first day. There are several ways to understand v. 1 in relation to the rest of the chapter.
That would need to be argued.
1 Like
I think Adam does appear in Genesis 1, but not by name. Genesis 1 certainly mentions God creating the first man and thatâs Adam.
On Kaiser, I donât have any specific reference to give you but I know that he supports Hugh Rossâs reading. On Waltke, Iâm believe he has accepts epoch because he is TE.
An historical narrative is a narrative about real history. It isnât an allegory or a myth or any type of fiction. Itâs history because it happened in space and time. How is such a claim âtoo general?â It seems very specific to me.
What God knows is the point. Iâm making it the point because people who complain about science being read into the text do so because the human author couldnât have known the science. Thatâs fine, but misses the point that Genesis 1 is inspired by God. Iâm not sure why this very important point is so difficult to grasp.
You arenât trying. We know that God is the Author of both the Bible and Nature. We know the Bible and science cannot be in conflict. If we think they are in conflict, it is because we misunderstand one or the other or both. In the case of Genesis 1:2 we know from science that the sun was already shining when the earth was formed. The sun was not created on Day 4. That is a naive reading of the text. In the HuffPost article @swamidass linked above, Dr. Schcroeder also offered the explanation that the sun, moon and stars come into view on Day 4 because the atmosphere changed and became clear.
Yes, Iâve already given a doctrinal defense of concordism. It is the clear teaching of the Bible. If you want to defeat my view, then you have to show an error in my defense of concordism.
Iâm explaining the text to modern readers and how it fits with science.
It looks like Genesis is written in response to them? Really? You think the author of Genesis read the earlier accounts in Akkadian? I donât think so. There wasnât a library in Alexandria at the time, but there was no Alexandria. Itâs bizarre to think the author of Genesis is aware of the other creation accounts.
If you want me to buy that, you are going to have to give me more to go on. You can think of God as the Author of Nature because he created everything. You can think of our understanding of the book as what is contained in the scientific literature. Of course, there are competing viewpoints and theories about many things just as there are different interpretations of the Bible. There are different interpretations of nature. There are different interpretations of the Bible. The right interpretation will be one in which they both agree. And we may not understand either exactly right just yet.
Concordism is never wrong. A particular attempt at concordism may be wrong. A naive reading suggests the sun was created on Day 4, but an informed reading realizes the sun has been shining since Day 1 when we had day and night for the first time.
The Bible often uses ellipses. The translators should have supplied the word 'visible" as in âAnd God made the two great lights visible.â
No, but if science could conclusively prove that the atmosphere of early earth was never opaque, then that would cause problems for Genesis 1:1 just as it would cause problems for Genesis 1:1 if scientists could prove the universe was past eternal. God is the one who made these claims when he inspired Genesis 1. I donât have to be nervous about them.
I take it that the earth was formless because it was completely covered with water. If it had some ocean and some land, then it would have some form.
No, I donât. The atmosphere had to be opaque in the very beginning because the scene was dark. The âLet there be lightâ happened on Day 1, changing the atmosphere from opaque to hazy or translucent. But in this hazy condition, the sun, moon and stars were not visible. They became visible on Day 4. If you wanted to falsify this, you would have to show that the atmosphere was clear and transparent from the very beginning.
Kenneth I am going to post an excerpt from the end of the article in the link that I posted to you in my previous reply, since it also answers this question.
"Exodus 20:11 while I am on this subject, and it is a verse which I will have more to say about later. It says that âFor six days the Lord made the heavens and the earthâ as well as what is in them. Though the King James Version says âFor in six daysâŚ.â we find that the word âinâ is not a part of the original text. Plus the word translated âmadeâ here, and in Genesis, is different from the word translated âcreatedâ in Genesis 1:1.
I will go into more detail in a bit but my point is that you cannot equate Exodus 20:11 with Genesis 1:1. This is because 1) Genesis 1:1 speaks of the creation of the earth and the universe before God spoke the first day into existence in Genesis 1:3 while Exodus 20:11 speaks of Godâs work on the heavens and the earth during the six days of Genesis chapter one. And 2) the word âinâ is not in the text. It is not saying that God created the world âinâ six days. Rather He worked on His creation for six days. He created it âin the beginningâ.
This fits a lot better with the context of the verse, where it is arguing that man should rest from his own labors on the land for one day out of seven because the Lord Himself did the same. He worked for six âdaysâ and on the seventh He rested. Farmers do not âcreateâ the earth they farm, but they do make it into something productive. That is mostly what the Lord did during the so-called âCreation Days.â
That is why I object to even the term âCreation Daysâ (I prefer Creationâs days). The Hebrew word translated âcreatedâ is not even used in regards to Godâs activities on days one through four. He did most of His âcreatingâ prior to the first day. Until the creation of Man, the rest of it was ordering the heavens and the earth He had previously created. Then He worked on them."
I argue in the book that in Genesis chapter one âcreateâ bara is used where God is producing something new, which never existed before in any form, and âmadeâ asah is used when what is going on in the natural realm is only a copy of that which is above or a re-shaping of things already in existence.
Here is the way I look at it, again from my previous link, and if I am making a hash of it please be gentle in setting me straight.
I support that claim based on two things. First, in verse one the Hebrew word translated âcreatedâ ( bara ) is in the âQal perfectâ form. That form is used to indicate completed action. That means it is talking about something which had already happened. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The text moves on from there to say that the earth was formless and void âand the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the watersâ.
So verses one and two are like a âset-upâ of the account of Godâs intervention on the earth, which starts off âformless and voidâ. These two verses are not a part of the first âdayâ. Instead they are setting the scene for the account of the days, each an intervention of God in some area, which follow.
Just look at the structure of the other days. Each one starts with âAnd God saidâ. God makes a statement, creation responds, the text describes God doing something related to His statement, and then the text says (in all but the seventh day) that the âevening and the morningâ of this process was day âXâ. Here is the pattern of the six daysâŚ.
God speaksâŚ
Creation responds (sometimes recorded only as âand it was soâ)
God acts (sometimes only âseeingâ and sometimes more direct action)
Day is summed up: The evening and the morning, day X.
Each of Creationâs days starts off with âAnd God saidâ. To fit the pattern, this would include the first day. The first âAnd God saidâ is found in verse three. Therefore verse three is the beginning of the first âdayâ. The first two verses then can only be referring to things which occurred before the first âdayâ occurred.
I do present the arguments for it. They are in the same book where I put forth resolutions to the mystery of why the 2nd day was not seen as good and why only the sixth day has a definite article.
This gets into the heart of my critique. Because âconcordism is never wrongâ is an axiom, then by definition no scientific finding will disprove it. Weâll just keep revising our versions of concordism. I think this undermines the improbability of the coincidences between Genesis 1 and science, because there are a variety of interpretations that can match.
But there is no precise definition of formless (tohu) as referring to liquidity in ANE literature. Please correct me if Iâm wrong. Can you give me a clear linguistic argument why it can be taken to refer to viscous, liquid magma instead of an âempty, trackless wasteâ (BDB Hebrew Lexicon)? Weâre take it as referring to Earthâs liquid form only because we know from science that the Earth was covered with liquid in the beginning. So itâs a form of eisegesis.
OK. But this is hard to falsify, no? Any change in the atmosphere from dark to transparent would pass the test. Even if the atmosphere was clear and transparent in the beginning, then became opaque, then became hazy, then clear again - that would still allow a scientific concordist reading according to your terms.
1 Like
I see where you are coming from, but I disagree. The fact concordism is taught by scripture means that I believe that science and the Bible must agree when we understand both correctly. And this is a powerful incentive to change your interpretation of Bible or science to reach agreement. But if the Bible says âThe universe is 6,000 years oldâ and we can look through our telescopes and see astronomical events that took place millions of years ago, then the Bible would be falsified. Itâs that simple. Thankfully, the Bible doesnât say the universe is 6,000 years old.
You are correct that to tohu does not require water, but it is the only interpretation that makes sense to me and water is mentioned in verse 2. I am not reading into the text.
You are correct. I should change my comment to say that to falsify Genesis 1:2, science would have to show that the atmosphere was transparent from the beginning and never became opaque.
Some say yes, some say no. Gen 1 has God creating 'adam, which is most naturally read as a collective (of more than two). This could include Adam, but that needs to be argued (which can be done).
This makes no sense. TEs tend not to read the days in Gen 1 in a non-concordist fashion. Iâve got Waltkeâs OT Theology in front of me, and he does not speak of days as epochs but of the whole as a creative work that is not straightforward history and that exhibits temporal incoherence (pp.190-93). Waltke took quite the theological journey (from YEC and dispensationalist to TE and covenant theology), so itâs possible to find earlier work that said other things.
Youâre using myth (and fiction) in their non-technical senses, so I wonât try to unpack that (just to say that myth and history are not opposites). What Iâm saying is not all historical references are of the same specificity or precision. Consider the analogy of film, in which we have a continuum: documentary, movie based on history, movie inspired by history, historical fiction. All these can claim to be âhistoricalâ or âaccurateâ but not at the same level. The question is what level of specificity does an author intend when he refers to the past? If you got in a time machine and went back to situation X, what would you really see? Calling something âhistorical narrativeâ doesnât settle this. (Neither have you argued for Gen 1 as historical narrative).
No, what God reveals is the point
It 's not about misunderstanding you; itâs that we disagree about the process of inspiration at this point
Oh give me a break
Weâve gone round and round on this. I donât have time or desire to defeat your view at this point. You havenât satisfactorily responded to several issues that have raised against your view.
This is quite naive. Moses may very well have read the Mesopotamian accounts in Egypt. He also had the Egyptian accounts available to him. Itâs not about necessarily reading the accounts, though, for the stories were âin the airââpeople knew what other people believed. What you call bizarre is the near unanimous opinion of OT scholars (including Kaiser and Waltke). But, alas, this does not mean much to you (except when you can find a scholar who agrees with your position).
Perhaps weâve exhausted our dialogue here? Or maybe others want to chime in. But weâre just going back and forth now on concordism and history.
1 Like
@Ronald_Cram, Iâve never seen an OT scholar engage someone with this much care and attention. He absolutely is trying. The issue is that you have different views. You can keep your views as they are. No one is trying to change you. Iâm honestly interested in learning from @deuteroKJ on this one.
1 Like
Your points are logical, but unconvincing to me. Iâm not convinced that v. 1 temporally precedes the Six Days. I think the Fourth Commandment is referring to the basic story in Gen 1, not parsing out every jot and tittle (and the focus on prepositions may be off track). On bara/asah, Iâm assuming youâve checked your lexical work with Waltonâs?
Nope, thatâs not how Hebrew verbs work (itâs really more about aspect than tense). The so-called Perfect often is used to refer to the past, but itâs not its only function. (But I agree the narrator reports as a past tense here.)
Most likely not. First, v. 1 could be a title for vv. 3-31. Or, v. 1 could be a dependent clauseâsubordinate to v. 3 (NJPS). Both of these options (and there are others) see v. 2 as the state of affairs before the creation of v.1 and vv. 3-31. Second, the Hebrew syntax of v. 2 makes it background rather than foreground (itâs based on the disjunctive waw at the beginning and delay of the verb). Thus v. 2 is not part of the main line, but providing parenthetical, background information. (This is one of the reasons all OT/Hebrew scholars reject the gap theory.)
I do agree that vv. 1-2 is prologue to the six days beginning in v. 3.
1 Like