Yes, I’ve heard of it. I find that there is a lot about it that is integral to my position to begin with: I take for granted that orality is the sole central feature of any most honest, humble, driven concern for written record. In my position on the origin of Genesis 1, orality is crucial to the very culture within which the account is properly preserved over the kinds of multiple generations that have not directly, in person, known each other.
On my use of ‘astro-centric’.
In the next day or three, I may think of some clearer ways to explain what I mean by this. But I assume that I have thought of how to explain it a little clearer for you already:
First, I take it as a given that humans normally want to have some basic, true knowledge of how their physical world both came to be and functions. This is what Genesis 1 appears to provide, especially of the latter: how the natural living world coheres. For example, the account can be seen to identify a nested recursion of six pairs of a general/special, or context/subject pattern:
1. The universe and its special Earth.
2. The Earth and is general water.
3. The water and its special cycle.
4. The water cycle and its general life.
5. General life and its animal life.
6. Animal life and human life.
Genesis 2, especially vs. 22-23, is thereby is predicted:
7. the man and his…
Therefore, Genesis 1 appears to be centrally about life, not first concerned to elaborate on the astronomical realm or the universally trivial physics of space and fire-retardant fabrics. In fact, on this view, the textual central portion of the account is not only (x) the first and only part of the narrative to at all so elaborate, but (y) undeniably is explicitly centered on Earth and its life.
…And the living Earth already has a ‘fire-retardant’ dress by virtue of that dress’s own central concern for the life that lives within it. It is not a mere fabric.
So, no ‘firemen’ ever are required: no polemics are required.
2 + 2 = 4 is not a polemic against financial con men. This, in fact, is why that unassuming equation is so powerfully employed for polemic purposes against such men. This is how I see Genesis 1. It is not a human or Divine contrivance. It is a result of a set of exquisitely complex natural functions that (1) God created, and (2) Adam and Eve employed.
So Genesis 1 is the opposite of astro-centric: It begins with, and proceeds upon, the special Earth. Status quo YEC’s like Faulkner, Humphries, and Morris, all find nothing wrong with reducing the first several verses to describing merely the general cosmos.
Not only does this appear to be a word salad of random “facts”, but you have couplets in here directly contradicting each other like the one above, and directly followed by yet another …
And what fire retardant fabrics or firemen have to do with anything still eludes me. I’m searching through the salad for any nutrition – something that couldn’t have been produced by a random phrase generator. Perhaps focusing on making short and small points might help?
Sooooo… males are “general” and females are “special”? Males are “context” and females are “subject”? Not sure what that means. Also not sure it’s there in Scripture in the first place.
I don’t see how this conclusion follows from your general/special assertions. I don’t see what fire retardant fabrics have to do with creation either.[quote=“Daniel_Pech, post:22, topic:35941”]
…And the living Earth already has a ‘fire-retardant’ dress by virtue of that dress’s own central concern for the life that lives within it. It is not a mere fabric.
[/quote]
I don’t understand.[quote=“Daniel_Pech, post:22, topic:35941”]
no polemics are required.
[/quote]
Do you think what you just wrote somehow addresses the idea that Genesis 1 is a polemic against prevailing ANE origin stories? Because I don’t think you actually did.[quote=“Daniel_Pech, post:22, topic:35941”]
It is not a human or Divine contrivance. It is a result of a set of exquisitely complex natural functions that (1) God created, and (2) Adam and Eve employed.
[/quote]
Okay. Genesis 1 is a text. It is a narrative. Texts do not result from “natural functions.” They are, by definition, constructed by humans (with or without divine influence). I have no idea how you are proposing the text of Genesis 1 came into being, but it doesn’t make sense if it was not to at least to some degree a human product.
So, all you’re saying is that the creation account in Genesis is concerned with life on earth?
I’m just curious. What is your aim in posting here on BioLogos? The vast majority of the people here think YEC arguments fail on two very broad counts: they don’t do appropriate biblical exegesis, and they don’t explain observable facts in the natural world. None of what you are saying (the part I can comprehend) “rescues” young earth creationism in the minds of people from an EC perspective. What would you gain if someone here agreed with you on some minor point? We still would think your whole approach to Scripture and the natural world is wrong.
1 Like
This I can understand. You are saying that 6000 years ago God created A&E with a fully formed spoken and written language. If I understand you correctly you are saying the written record was recorded initially with cords and fabric and then later transferred to clay tablets. Am I correct so far? So if you are correct there should be plenty of examples of paleo-Hebrew inscribed clay tablets. And can you tell me how many of them have been found?
The two problems you have are:
-
The earth is 4.543 billion years old. There is no way to deny this except to say the Bible is right and what we see in God’s Creation is wrong (or God is a deceptive god and created with the appearance of age).
-
There is abundant historical evidence that humans have been around for 200,000 years. During this time humans gradually developed modern behaviors and left indications of this in their preserved dwelling sites. About 50,000 there appears to have been a sudden change in human behaviors to be fully modern. About 10,000 years ago agriculture was started all over the earth, not just the ANE.
Until you can address these issues all the talk about YEC is just that, talk.
Regarding the age of the earth problem, I might suggest that time is relative, and the work of the Holy Spirit can be like a time traveler at nearly the speed of light, meaning 24 hours from our point of reference would be different from the Holy Spirit’s 24 hour work day. (consistent with the special or general theory of relativity perhaps?)
However, the appearance of humans 200,000 years ago seems to create a problem, but even here 24 hours in the time frame of the Holy Spirit on day 6 may have been several hundred thousand of our years, rather than on day 1 where it was several billion of our years. If so, pre-Adamites (a term I recall as a young man) existed up until the breathing of life into Adam creating a spiritual being in the image of God.
On day 6 it says, male and female he created them. Is it possible that this refers not to Adam and Eve but to these pre-Adamites? This would help explain that Day 6 was before Chapter 2 of Genesis, rather than day 6 having to include chapter 2 when Eve was created after Adam named the animals?
Is this view in harmony with Genesis? Or not? Would this help to explain where Cain’s wife came from when he was sent into exile by God after killing Abel. And how the “sons of God” had children from the daughters of men which were beautiful, meaning Adams and his descendents were sons of God?
Once you drop the “Earth is 10,000 years old” you can fit Genesis to history however you see fit. There are a wide variety of ways to do so. @Daniel_Pech is an avowed YEC so he can’t do that.
1 Like
Or you can conclude it was never intended to be a blow by blow account of natural history, and then you don’t have to fit it at all. You can read it for the theological truths it presents. 
2 Likes
Thanks Christy for the reply.
The issue I am having is that my non-denominational Christian church that I attend (and that has led my spiritual growth over the last few years) is undergoing a series titled “Creation or Evolution”!
I have read your founder’s book (Dr. Collins) book and it really helped me immensely. My PhD in biochemistry step son bought it for me for my birthday. What a wonderful well written and understandable book!
However, the key issue is indeed how do you look at Genesis as part of the true Word of God and reconcile it with Evolution. What I have read on this web site and the comment you made about it not being real natural history still leaves me a bit empty. The bible is not just a philosophy but a recorder of actual historical events - which events then do you ignore and when you do, doesn’t this become a slippery slope away from the Word of God? So I try to develop a scientific theory in my mind perhaps inspired by the Holy Spirit to connect the dots so to speak and seems pretty close, but alas admit I am not a scientist. I am worse than a fig picking shepherd from Tekoa (reference to the prophet Amos)
Certainly one can say that the YEC view is wrong with the evidence of science that some of them may be able to understand, but then I face the question “how do you reconcile Genesis as the true word of God?” And I can just say I don’t know, but I do know that the YEC “fake science” explanations are incorrect, and furthermore, it bears bad fruit that leads people away from Christ. And indeed as an apprentice disciple of Christ this is my concern. It is not about me, it is about them.
Neal
1 Like
I look at that question and reword it a bit and ask," What is God trying to tell me in Genesis?" The answer of which makes a difference in what the truth of the message is.
My conclusion is that God is revealing himself, and teaching me about how he relates to me, how I relate to my fellow man, how I relate to the rest of creation, to hit the high points.
I totally agree. And the historicity of some of those events matters greatly to the theology. If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead in a literal historical sense, then game over. If Abraham did not have a covenant with God or if Moses did not lead the Hebrew slaves out of Israel in some actual historical sense, that is a problem too. For many people if Adam and Eve did not commit the first sin in a actual historical sense, that is a problem too. But the Bible does more than just record historical facts and sometimes it records facts in ways that are culturally unfamiliar to us and easily misunderstood. Are the ages of people recorded in Genesis historical facts, or could they have been using numbers in a way whose meaning is lost to us but was clearly understood by the original audience as something other than a purely factual record of years lived? If certain kinds of exaggerations and hyperboles about war and conquest were how histories were told and everyone in the original audience understood, then should we say that the accounts are not “historical” or not “true” because we prefer a less embellished, purely factual style of writing history? It is hard for us to recognize because our own culture seems so normal, but deciding something can only be “true” if it is factually accurate is a cultural judgment.
[/quote][quote=“heiresnt, post:29, topic:35941”]
which events then do you ignore and when you do, doesn’t this become a slippery slope away from the Word of God?
[/quote]
I don’t ignore any of the Bible. But I don’t think “historical fact” is the only thing that makes something relevant as far as ultimate truth is concerned. If that were the case, large chunks of the Bible would be useless to us because they don’t deal with facts at all. When reading any passage of Scripture, I try to ask myself, “What was the author trying to communicate? Why did they tell this story or give this command or share this feeling?” (And I can’t usually figure out the answer myself, that is what commentaries are for) Sometimes I think the answer legitimately is “The author recorded this to communicate facts God wanted us to know” But a lot of time it’s more complicated than that and insisting the Bible pass some kind of fact-checking test gets in the way of the real intended message.
When I look at it I expect it to teach me true things about God and humanity, what God expects of us, why we are on earth, and how we are supposed to relate to others and creation. I don’t expect it to teach me science.
Thanks Phil.
Putting myself in the shoes of an Israelite several thousand years ago, God could not explain Genesis in the way we understand the universe today as then they had no idea of the expanse of the cosmos, etc etc.
But the message in Genesis of what God is trying to tell me today remains the same as it was then, ABSOLUTELY!
And that is the Truth of it!
Neal
And the tautology begins again … or again of an again …
So would you agree that some of those events include God storing hail and snow in vast warehouses in orbit around the Earth … as discussed in Job?
Job 38:22-23
Hast thou entered into the treasures of the snow? or hast thou seen the treasures of the hail,
Which I have reserved against the time of trouble, against the day of battle and war?
I would love to see the history notes on this topic!!!
I am ever being reminded that seemingly most people cannot follow analogues very well, and yet I cannot seem to get this through my thick head. I’ve been told that I’m very good at making analogies, but replies like yours here keep reminding me that I really ought to try stop taking for granted that most people understand me!
It’s just so obvious to me, and it requires a lot of effort for me to explain in lots of ‘ordinary’ language as to the analogies that I am making.
I usually don’t know where to begin! For me it’s like being asked to explain why I keep mentioning that the sky is blue!
But, yeah, I have a thick head as far as explaining in terms that most people can understand. I’m sorry.
I don’t what is ‘couplet’. Also, to me, there does not appear to be any random “facts”. So this is confusing to me when people say that what I have presented is just word salad. It is not word salad to anyone to whom it is not word salad, and it is word salad to anyone to whom it is word salad.
Not everyone finds that cilantro tastes like perfume-y soap, but a conversation is a single dish from which all participants are forced to eat. So I think that thick-headedness is a more a mutual problem than one that afflicts only one side. But I’m sorry.
I can own up to my fair share of thick-headedness.
Whatever you continue to try explaining to others I may follow and see if I can pick up more. But meanwhile don’t feel like you need to repeat a whole lot just for my sake.
This is part of my disagreement with EC: it lazily condescends pre-modern humans as mental brutes.
The way I see it, there is overwhelming evidence that most pre-modern humans knew most or all of the basic things that moderns observe of the geometry of the celestial realm, and of the shape of Earth in the midst of that realm. YEC Danny Faulkner effectively condescends pre-moderns in regard to the atmosphere and outer space:
The first heaven is the near distance above us. Today we would call this
the atmosphere, though the atmosphere was not a concept that ancient
people, including the Hebrews, would recognize.
(((( Danny Faulkner: Thoughts on the rāqîa‘ and a Possible Explanation for the Cosmic Microwave Background. Answers Research Journal 9 (2016):57-65, https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v9/raqia-cosmic-microwave-background.pdf , Thoughts on rāqîa‘ and Cosmic Microwave Background | Answers Research Journal. ))))
I’m not trying to defend YEC here. I’m trying to show why YEC is not equivalent to its merely status quo.
Not even most YEC’s seem to see the distinction. And when they do, they think the status quo of YEC is the proper center of YEC, on grounds that that status quo is the most directly and simply, polemically opposed to EC, OEC, and Atheism).
My position is that no camp (YEC, OEC, EC) is right just by being that camp. By analogy, I am a male of the human kind, but that ought not be taken to mean that male-chauvinism is right (not by anyone: male, female, old, young, etc.).
This is why I posted here of my criticisms of some of the things espoused by YEC Faulkner and YEC DeRemer et al:
Danny Faulkner: Thoughts on the rāqîa‘ and a Possible Explanation for the Cosmic Microwave Background. Answers Research Journal 9 (2016):57-65, https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/pdf-versions/arj/v9/raqia-cosmic-microwave-background.pdf , Thoughts on rāqîa‘ and Cosmic Microwave Background | Answers Research Journal.
(DeRemer, F., M. Amunrud, and D. Dobberpuhl. 2007. Days 1-4. Journal of Creation 21, no.3:69-76, pg. 69 (Abstract) https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_69-76.pdf)
Amunrud, especially, was (at least until most recently in private) obsessed in support of the polemic value of certain YEC considerations of Genesis 1. For him, the account’s entire first eight verses was God’s way of fighting fire with fire: that God didn’t so much care about the fact that the YEC house was thereby being burned down, so much as that God wanted to be sure to crispify all non-YEC positions. I told both Amunrud and YEC Kenneth Gentry the same analogy that I have presented here: that just because 2 + 2 = 4 have polemic value against dishonest weights and measures does not mean it is a polemic in itself.
My point is that there are certain things that the merely status quo of YEC makes of Genesis 1 that nearly all YEC’s are determined to defend mainly because of its polemic value, not because it makes the best good sense in itself, either by the terminology in the account or by the sequence they seem determined to see from that terminology.
I find that there is no culturally universal/neutral terminology, and I think John Walton finds the same.
So I am here partly to show that there is a deep distinction between YEC and certain things that most YEC’s today espouse. Amunrud and his two co-authors just take those certain things to the extreme, thereby leaving Earth’s part in Genesis 1 with nothing but the mere binary shape of its completed surface (vs. 9-10).
I’m thinking I’m being clearer by being more terminologically ‘objective’. It’s like I’m a ‘mentally rigid’ spaceman talking to Earthlings about the fact that ‘the Sun rises’ by using the most cosmically ‘objective’ terms I can think of. It should be no wonder that I keep loosing people, but I do often have a very, very thick head!
-
"Hebrew prime’ = oral Hebrew (but only because humans, as such, can, say, hear. This implies, for example, that, for persons who are born deaf who all learn a given same hand-gesture version of Hebrew, their ‘Hebrew prime’ is that particular hand-gesture version; Therefore ‘historical Hebrew prime’ or ‘normal Hebrew prime’ would exclude such private, non-normal instances).
-
‘prosthetically coded-represented Hebrew’ = normally, written Hebrew (but only because humans are both, say, (a) not deaf, and (b) not born with some kind of mentally operated etch-a-sketch-like visual displays on their foreheads;).
-
‘form in which the prime’ = a non-oral given form in which oral Hebrew is represented. (The historical written form known to Moses onwards is not necessarily the only written form in which spoken Hebrew may be, or ever was, represented.)