Let's exegete Genesis 9:8-11

Conversation
61

And I’m equally baffled at why it seems so challenging to understand. It’s really not that difficult; although I’m not surprised by arguments like this (more on that below). This is more of a deflection, and not worthy of a debate. It actually reminds me of something…

I want to take a moment to share some of the biggest reasons I have for believing that Genesis 1-11 is to be read as historical narrative (and The Flood as being global). As a Bible-believing Christian with a huge desire to honor God by honoring His word, this is something I simply had to have the answer to. As the saying goes, I’d rather be right with God, yet wrong with the world. And to quote John Calvin: “we owe to the Scripture the same reverence as we owe to God.”

One of the most helpful means was (and still is) to listen to the opinions of three groups of individuals: 1) Primarily, ancient Hebrew Scholars, 2) Modern day Young Earth Creationists, 3) Modern day Deep Time advocates (OEC’s and such).

Ancient Hebrew Scholars
There simply isn’t a more authoritative group than this! Who better to answer: “How should Genesis be read?” And from what modern historians have derived, the consensus among them was that Genesis 1-11 was historical narrative. For me, that is hugely significant, and sufficient in itself.

Modern day Young Earth Creationists
There is one thing I admire most about this group: They are absolutely committed to Honoring God’s Word above all else. Some even say to a fault (numerous times their statements of faith, or hiring agreements are mentioned, showing just how much they uphold scripture above scientific consensus).

As a result, they go to great lengths to study the scripture to ensure they are interpreting it properly (and if you think they’re interpreting a Hebrew word incorrectly, by all means let them know!). I’ve actually learned a good bit about the Hebrew language by following this group. (BTW, for Bible nerds out there, I highly recommend the book: In the Beginning – Listening to Genesis 1 and 2, by Cornelis Van Dam). I’m impressed at the rigor they’ve applied to studying Genesis.

Modern day OEC and other Big-Bang/Deep-Time advocate
I’ve spent a lot of time listening to OEC arguments regarding Genesis. I’ve really wanted to hear what they have to say. I still listen their side whenever I see public debates regarding Genesis. But after years of listening, I started seeing a pattern: Mostly weak arguments that sound like they’re coming from someone who just wants to believe in the Big Bang.

Things like: Supposed contradictions. Supposed philosophical challenges such as “24 hour days before the sun on day 4”, or “Day 7 not mentioning ‘evening.’”, or “The Bible is not a science textbook”. Out of all of Gen 1-11, finding a single Hebrew word that could use one of its alternative definitions (despite all the consensus against that interpretation). One figure in church history who said something to give one enough wiggle-room to accept Deep Time. Reference to things in Genesis which seem strange or “fantastic”.

I just find so many of these arguments to be weak. BTW a note to OECs here: This is not meant to be rude, I just want to be honest. And there are numerous others within the YEC community who also feel this way. I’ll express it again, the majority of arguments from the OEC crowd are unconvincing attempts to merge Genesis with the Big Bang.

62

Then simply explain why would you expand it and include an exception that isn’t in the Hebrew.

Then simply explain why you would add words that aren’t there at all.

We’re asking for an explanation, not a debate.

Again, why would you blatantly add text that isn’t in the Hebrew, if you’re trying to be literal?

Who is deflecting, Jeff? Nothing you wrote explains why you added a whole phrase that isn’t in the Hebrew.

Psst…Jeff, Allen is one of those. He is equally baffled by the addition you won’t explain.

Yet another claim with zero evidentiary support. You’ve already confessed that you only look at one side and limit yourself to hearsay.

We’re puzzled by your addition of an entire phrase that isn’t in the Hebrew. It’s not about interpreting a word.

I don’t find that credible. If the question (not an argument) was so weak, you wouldn’t have written an entire page of deflections.

Again, why would you expand it and include an exception that obviously isn’t there in the Hebrew, if you’re trying to be literal?

2 Likes
63

Then you agree that the sun goes around the earth and that the latter is flat, covered by a solid roof?

7 Likes
64

Does the phrase “be wrong with” mean something different than “be wrong about”? If so, what does it mean, exactly?

1 Like
65

That does not seem to be true. I quoted this earlier but it bears repeating:

It seems to me that YECs are dedicated to interpreting the Bible on the assumption that it teaches YEC - and all the care goes into forcing the text to fit.

6 Likes
66

I have no idea where you get this from. Virtually no Hebrew scholars support Genesis 1-11 as historical narrative. AiG complains all the time that they get push back from Seminarians. Hebrew or Old Testament scholars, even evangelical sympathetic experts such as Bruce K. Waltke, let alone John Walton, generally reject literalist interpretations. The massive 15 volume Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament examining Biblical Hebrew is anything but literalist. You seem to live in a bubble both theological and scientific.

Also, some of YEC Biblical interpretation is very dodgy from a historical narrative perspective. There is nothing in the Bible to support that “kinds” are anything other than familiar animals as Hebrews knew by name, just as Adam assigned. There is no indication that the rivers of Eden did not match with the rivers they knew. When Cain got married, was concerned with his reputation causing trouble with other people, and built a city, the plain implication is that people are all around.

4 Likes
67

Can you expand on your first reason? Every time I’ve seen similar arguments the person putting the argument forward has never offered any real justification. As written your version is both vaguer - yet makes a stronger claim that appears to be untrue.

2 Likes
68

Fair enough. If the original words were written in ancient Hebrew, we should look to scholars of that language to get the most plausible interpretation of how those words were intended to be understood. That makes sense to me.

Now I’m just curious about this putative consensus. @jeffb not being involved in the field of Bible study or ancient languages at all, how’d I go about determining whether there is this consensus you speak of? Has there been some sort of poll published, or questionnaires handed out at ancient Hebrew scholar conferences?

2 Likes
69

I asked ChatGPT about this putative scholarship and it seemed to disagree.

Me: Debates about Bible interpretation rage on endlessly, and I’ve seen claim and arguments both for and against the idea that Genesis 1-11 in the Bible is meant to be interpreted at literal historical account. I assume scholars of ancient Hebrew would perhaps be a useful guide here, if there is some sort of consensus in the field on how to understand these words. Has there been some sort of poll results published among ancient Hebrew scholars on how to read Genesis 1-11?

ChatGPT said:

There hasn’t been a formal, widely publicized poll specifically among scholars of ancient Hebrew (or biblical scholars more generally) that gives statistical results like “X% interpret Genesis 1–11 literally.” However, there is a strong general consensus among mainstream academic scholars—including those who specialize in ancient Hebrew, Old Testament studies, and ancient Near Eastern literature—that Genesis 1–11 is not intended as a literal historical account, but rather as a mythological or theological narrative using literary and symbolic language to express deep truths about God, humanity, and the world.

I pressed it on the answers (for example how it assessed concensus exists without a poll) and asked for sources, here is the full conversation for anyone interested:

1 Like
70

I believe that @jeffb was referring to ancient scholars of Hebrew, not scholars of ancient Hebrew. Who those ancient scholars might be is unclear. Writers of the Talmud?

71

That makes it all the more difficult to assess whether there really was some sort of consensus among scholars back then. Now I’m even more curious how @jeffb came to this conclusion.

1 Like
72

And even if that is who he was referring to, I don’t know if his conclusion (that their interpretation is the most accurate) follows. Those ancient scholars might have been quite knowledgeable about the Hebrew language, but they likely did not know much about geology or the true geography of the earth. If they had been aware that a global flood was a physical impossibility, their interpretation of the Hebrew text might well have been similar to that of present day scholars.

1 Like
73

I must say that that summary statement from ChatGPT says it very well.

I could also add that there is a mistaken trope in a lot of Young Earth Creationist literature which seems to suggest that there is something about the grammar and syntax and “structure” of Genesis 1 (and sometimes some authors will extend it to Genesis 1 to 11 in general) which demands that that Biblical text be understood as “literal historical narrative” (i.e., actually happened exactly as written.) And that is rubbish. It is like saying that one can tell from the grammar, syntax, and structure of an English text which describes the famous race between the tortoise and the hare was an actual “historical sports event.” No. Obviously not. [And the lessons of the tortoise and hare do not require “literal” interpretation to be valued as truth. Of course, I’m not saying that Genesis 1 is “mere parable”. The grammar/syntax doesn’t demand that interpretation either.]

In making these points about Genesis 1, neither I—nor any much better Hebrew scholar than I am—is necessarily saying that Genesis 1 is false. Scholars are simply recognizing that there are many kinds of literary genera and Genesis 1 should be read according to what the original author(s) and the oral traditions who/which most likely preceded them were trying to communicate. In my experience from past experiences with AAR/SBL and ETS members [I won’t bother to explain the acronyms, though I have many times before] is that everybody could agree that the main purpose of Genesis 1 was to identify ELOHIM as the creator of everything. It does NOT have to be a “literal chronology” of events to be true under the intentions of the author(s).

I should also add that countless evangelical scholars I used to work with were willing to call it mytho-history in private (if not also in public) but because the general public tends to wrongly assume that myth demands falsehood, many choose alternate terms like “imagistic history” or “proto-history” or even “worldview story/history.” (It is also worth mentioning that many evangelical scholars must tread extremely carefully because they’d be fired immediately if they failed to “officially” concur with the hyperliteralist YEC doctrinal statement of their employing institutions.)

Of course, if one simply assumes that ONLY Young Earth Creationist scholars love and honor the Bible, then by definition everybody else is dishonoring the Word of God. @jeffb, I do understand the appeal of that kind of circular reasoning because I personally “lived it” for many years. But the more I engaged the Hebrew text of the Bible—and what the New Testament says about it—I began to realize that my “creation science” background based on Whitcomb, Morris, and Gish had far more to do with relatively recent Seventh Day Adventist traditions than those of two millennia of Christianity (and even more of Judaism.)

3 Likes
74

When I was a Young Earth Creationist long ago, the YEC Hebrew scholars I looked up to made arguments something like this:

Vav-consecutive expressed a sequence of actions that occurred in the past. The vav-consecutive is used in Genesis 1 and 2. Therefore Genesis 1-2 must be literal historical narrative.

Later, I learned this to be obvious rubbish in that the vav-consecutive in Hebrew is a narrative indicator in much the same way that “And then this happened…” is a narrative indicator in English. It is neutral as to whether the narrative is about literal history.

I could tell the story of “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” with lots of connecting phrases (i.e. consecutive indicators) to drive the narrative:

Goldilocks found a house in the woods.
And then she went inside.
And then she decided to eat some of the food she found.
And then she took a nap.

But nothing about the grammar or syntax tells us whether or not a real Goldilocks ever visited the home of the three bears. (Where were the three bears at the time? They were off in the woods doing . . . well . . . they were doing exactly what one expects bears to do in the woods. Where else would they go?..unless they were doing a Charmin commercial, of course,)

7 Likes
75

I;ve seen that argument and nobody using it could adequately explain it, or explain how it would differ if it were “worldview storytelling”. I don’t think that spreading this sort of falsehood is honouring the Bible at. All. It is - as I said - an attempt to force the YEC interpretation onto the text.

6 Likes
76

John, if I had more of an indication of your sincerity of dialog on the topic, I’d be inclined to dialog. But understand something about me: As soon as I detect signals of perpetual debate, I’m done. There’s far too much of that around here. Just not interested.
Plus, I just believe it’s too weak a challenge to engage on.

77

Regarding AiG’s commitment to the Bible, if you listen to Ken Ham, you will often here him repeat this statement:

This is a Biblical Authority issue

I think that’s a powerful statement.

Of course.

I find it a little odd that you’re trying to make a case that AiG isn’t committed to honoring God’s word, because some folks explored The Ark (with magnifying glasses apparently) and found what? Placards that used various translations and lack of ellipses? Those are things that are not un-common to see within many Christian circles (remember their target is mainstream Christians). All the while standing inside of a huge structure they spent millions to build, all due to their commitment to Biblical Authority. Yeah, I’d say that’s being pretty committed to God’s Word!

78

Perhaps a little clarification would help. I could just simplify it to say “ancient Hebrews”. Or better yet ancient Rabbis.

From James Barr, a leading Hebrew scholar. He was “Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England”.

… probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

  1. creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience,

  2. the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story,

  3. Noah’s flood was understood to be worldwide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

[Barr, J., letter to David C.C. Watson, 23 Apr 1984.]

From here: Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition

After years of agonizing over the literal days of creation in Genesis, I decided to spend time researching this problem at the London School of Jewish Studies in Hendon, England. After all, I thought, why shouldn’t I go to the natural Jewish vine for some answers?
…
After days of careful study of the conservative Rabbinical scholars, I had my answer: the days of Genesis were literal.
…
We are even told that the ancient Rabbis did not bother to debate about the literal days so much as the actual month in a solar year when the world was made! The commentary says, “It appears that the ancients referred to Tishrei [September/October] as the first month, for in it creation was completed.” [italics in original, bold emphasis mine]

@Rumraket (from here: Let's exegete Genesis 9:8-11 - #71 by Rumraket )
To answer your question specifically about “scholars back then”, seeing that the ancient Rabbis “did not bother to debate about the literal days so much as the actual month…” was to me, quite an indication of consensus among the early Hebrews! On the other hand I’ve never heard record of ancient Rabbis giving any indication that they believe the opening of Genesis was a myth.

===
I additionally want to add this one, even though it focuses on modern-day Hebraists: From “Is Genesis History” interview with a Hebraist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84BqOxVae70

[At 15:20] “…And what I’m saying as a Hebraist, and I’m not saying I’m the world’s greatest Hebraist in any sense, but the world’s greatest Hebraists all affirm that this is a narrative. “

79

I might someday have to add “I asked ChatGPT…” to my list of poor arguments people make. Or worse “I read a Wikipedia page…”

Regarding the vav-consecutive:

Wow. That’s pretty bold of you to likening the opening of The Word of God to a fairy tale (or myth)!

So when those early Hebrew Rabbis, and when the early Church members read and believed these words:

“And God said… and it was so…”

You can confidently (hypothetically) say to them: “Nope, didn’t happen. That was just a fairy tale or myth.” ??
Yes, that’s a pretty bold thing to do with God’s Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I’m just curious (and being honest with this request): Can any here find any indication that the early Hebrews, or early Church members believed the opening of Genesis to be a myth? Because I’ve never seen that, and I did study the ANE arguments a good bit (I’d have to go back through my notes).

===
PS: For those wanting to reword WLC’s “mytho-history”, how about “non-history-history”, or “false-truth”, or “myth-myth”, and then just shorten it to “myth”? Just a suggestion…

80

Yes, that does help. Thanks. But then the next quote refers to something quite different, either modern professors of Hebrew or the writers of Genesis, neither of which is “ancient Rabbis”. I’m thinking that what you actually mean would be the writers and early readers of Genesis.

If we grant that proposition, and it seems reasonable to me (not a Hebrew scholar of any sort), we are confronted with a problem: based on everything we can see of the world none of those stories can be true. It’s often said that God provides us with two books: the book of scripture and the book of nature, and that there can be no contradiction between the two. What do you think? Are we just so bad at reading the book of nature that we can’t tell anything thereby? Are we instead that bad at reading the book of scripture? Or is there in fact a real contradiction? And in the last case, what can that mean?

5 Likes