Is Genesis 1 coincidentally accurate?

[anon46279830]

@deuteroKJ

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).

But Exodus 20:11 also uses “asah”. That is, it supports my point about the creating of the heavens and the earth mostly prior to the six days. After that He was working on it (except for the “new” things on days five and six), just as the people would be doing in their six day work week. PS- not as enamored of Walton as some are around here, but I value your feedback.

@deuteroKJ

The so-called Perfect often is used to refer to the past, but it’s not its only function. (But I agree the narrator reports as a past tense here.)

Then even if I am missing something about the full range of ways Hebrew works, we agree what I am suggesting fits in the range of possibilities, yes?

@deuteroKJ

Most likely not. First, v. 1 could be a title for vv. 3-31. Or, v. 1 could be a dependent clause–subordinate 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 (it’s 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.

Well thank you for that correction. It is not germane to my real point that the first day begins in verse three, after the heavens and the earth have already been created. Which you seem to agree with.

[Ronald_Cram]

@deuteroKJ

This makes no sense. TEs tend not to read the days in Gen 1 in a non-concordist fashion.

As a TE, Waltke certainly doesn’t see yom as a 24 hour day. I don’t think he would go for a Walton-style interpretation. Perhaps I’m wrong.

@deuteroKJ

What I’m saying is not all historical references are of the same specificity or precision.

Yes, I agree with this. It’s the point I’ve tried to make by saying the Genesis 1 is not a science book. But it does appear to be a narrative of our natural history. I’m just trying to be respectful of the text.

@deuteroKJ

All these can claim to be “historical” or “accurate” 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 “historical narrative” doesn’t settle this. (Neither have you argued for Gen 1 as historical narrative).

I can’t grant your point here. There’s a big difference between history and historical fiction. I don’t think the Bible contains historical fiction. I have cogently argued for Genesis 1 to be historical narrative. It is describing the past and it does so accurately. It is not myth. It is not fiction.

@deuteroKJ

No, what God reveals is the point

Good point. But my point that the human author’s ignorance of science cannot be held against my view.

@deuteroKJ

It 's not about misunderstanding you; it’s that we disagree about the process of inspiration at this point

Is it about the process of inspiration? Or is it about the results of inspiration? Please describe the process you have in mind and why it gets different results than I am describing.

@deuteroKJ

Oh give me a break

I just mean that you are not trying to see my point that God knows what the human author doesn’t know.

@deuteroKJ

We’ve gone round and round on this. I don’t have time or desire to defeat your view at this point. You haven’t satisfactorily responded to several issues that have raised against your view.

What issues have you raised that I have not adequately answered?

@deuteroKJ

This is quite naive. Moses may very well have read the Mesopotamian accounts in Egypt. He also had the Egyptian accounts available to him. It’s not about necessarily reading the accounts, though, for the stories were “in the air”–people knew what other people believed. What you call bizarre is the near unanimous opinion of OT scholars (including Kaiser and Waltke).

Can you provide any link showing that Kaiser or Waltke hold that the author of Genesis copied from earlier creation stories? I would be very interested to see that.

@deuteroKJ

Perhaps we’ve exhausted our dialogue here? Or maybe others want to chime in. But we’re just going back and forth now on concordism and history.

Possibly so.

[deuteroKJ (Kenneth Turner)]

@anon46279830

ut Exodus 20:11 also uses “asah”.

Not necessarily relevant. We can’t treat Hebrew words as if they carry technical precision. Also, different authors (or even the same author) can use words slightly differently. It’s possible the use of asah in Exod 20 is significant in terms of the direction you want to go (but I wouldn’t focus on the preposition “working on”). But it could just as well be that asah is used b/c it a general term with a large semantic range (kind of like the English “make”). Because it’s not clear to me which direction to take, I would make a case on other pieces of evidence.

@anon46279830

PS- not as enamored of Walton as some are around here, but I value your feedback.

I don’t agree with Walton’s function-only view (I critiqued a portion of his book on BioLogos), but I do think it’s a focus of the text. What I’m talking about is the word studies of bara and asah that Walton does.

@anon46279830

Then even if I am missing something about the full range of ways Hebrew works, we agree what I am suggesting fits in the range of possibilities, yes?

Past tense fits, but the problem is what you do next with “the text moves forward” as if v. 1 is necessary prior to v. 2 (or vv. 3ff). The part most (outside my field) don’t consider much is when did v. 2 happen? (I mean within the temporal sequence of events in Gen 1:1-3, but it also applies to the when of history.)

[deuteroKJ (Kenneth Turner)]

Not sure which thread (perhaps a new one?) this fits, but it’s germane to my participation in all of them. This is a great peace by Walton “On Being Right or Wrong.”

[anon46279830]

@deuteroKJ

We can’t treat Hebrew words as if they carry technical precision

I suppose this is an extension of the Concordism debate. I assume different words were used for a reason. Others assume there is no particular reason for the words. In my way, I have to find a pattern that fits and explains the evidence. The other position is in the easier place of simply showing why my narrowness of use leads to inconsistencies. So far, its working well for me.

@deuteroKJ

What I’m talking about is the word studies of bara and asah that Walton does.

Ah, I’ll try to find that then. But what I think he has wrong does not inspire confidence to accept his explanation in the rest of it.

@deuteroKJ

but the problem is what you do next with “the text moves forward”

I now see that was not the best way to put it. The condition in verse 2 is NOT something that happened after verse one, just a comment on what it was like at that time. I also reject the gap theory in chapter one.

[dga471 (Daniel)]

Ronald, can I also ask you about how one can measure the opacity of a silicate vapor atmosphere? I’m not an expert in this area and can’t seem to find a clear reference to the opacity in the papers that you mentioned.