I know this could easily go into a handful of existing threads … including even current ones. But it was too good to just let it get lost somewhere.
Here is a Holy Post Video (Host Phil Vischer speaking) that does an excellent job explaining what Genesis says and doesn’t say, and how the faithful have read and used Genesis over the centuries.
[And this is released just as they also released a four-part series on “how to read Genesis” where Skye interviews John Walton. However, I think those are (at this point) still only available behind a Holy Post subscription wall.]
Hmm, I suspect that those who are convinced that the Bible was written to them and that the Bible tells them that the creation was “ex nihilo” are going to take issue with Vishcher’s failure to confirm their opinion.
I dont follow anyones opinion personally, i am able to read, use comprehension, common understanding of.language, a little basic research skill, and it become obvious this question is as ridiculous as asking “is the word trinity in the bible?”.
We dont get the age of the earth from the book of Genesis…you wont find the age of the earth in any biblical text. Thats not how this works.
We get an approximate age give or take a millenia from cross referencing and logical deduction.
Given we have no eyewitnesses to any of this, that is all we have. The rest comes down to faith and belief. Whether that is in a deity, or something else is the difference.
I will add criticism in at this point…
too often Catholics rely on direction from leaders and do not study for themselves. Having come from catholicism into protestantism, i would argue most catholics beliefs are programmed into them with little or no questioning. We should avoid being programmed and study for ourselves…its not difficult.
The podcast starts out with a deficient premise and i would suggest its apparently well educated team ignore the full scope of Epistomology. The who and the why are meaningless without the what and the how (all of which are logical human questions)…ignoring two of them does not address the dilemmas of TEism when faced with cross referenced biblical theology. Therefore the intentional ignoring of two denies any epistemological credibility for belief.
The structure of a body of knowledge or justified belief, including whether all justified beliefs must be derived from justified foundational beliefs or whether justification requires only a coherent set of beliefs; and,
Philosophical scepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge, and related problems, such as whether scepticism poses a threat to our ordinary knowledge claims and whether it is possible to refute sceptical arguments.
(sorry i made an error and have corrected it - “what” and “how”)
Are the stories of rich men and beggars and fiery chasms and ten-headed monsters all just meaningless gibberish then unless they can first pass “what and how” historicity tests?
The four episodes where Skye interviews John Walton are excellent! I’ve listened to two of them so far … and as somebody who still hasn’t read any of Walton’s scholarly work for itself, I feel like I’m at least getting immersed in his wisdom from his own lips. I really wish it wasn’t behind a registration wall, but hey - if you’re interested, become a Holy Post subscriber (it doesn’t cost a lot) - and then you’ll get access to this content. I’ll happily and shamelessly put that plug in for them here. Meanwhile I’ve transcribed a bit of Skye’s discourse below from the 2nd of those episodes.
How to Read Genesis 1 – Episode 2
(25:17 in … Skye Jethani speaking here, in his interview with John Walton)
Skye speaking:
…I’ve gone back and read Genesis 1, having learned these various concepts from you and other scholars… I’m struck by how intelligent, nuanced, and brilliant the writer of Genesis 1 is. If someone like one of my kids were to ask me how the world was created, I might as a modern, more scientifically-minded person start talking about some crazy science and physics and formations of galaxies and stuff that would probably be way over their head. At some point the writer of Genesis sat down and said, okay – I’m going to tell about the origins of the world, but he draws from this assumed structure, not of science, but assumed structure of temple, and it’s so intricately theologically rich and nuanced and there’s so much truth in there about who God is, who we are, why we’re here, what he’s interested in; all that is embedded in just a few words. It’s crazy how much brilliance is there in such a simple structure; and it then makes me sad to think that for so many people, they don’t see any of that because theyr’e coming at this text with a modern American, post-enlightenment, material-origin kind of stuff, and they lose all that brilliance because they’re asking the wrong questions.
I find Vischer and Walton go too far in saying it isn’t about material creation at all; it’s just that material stuff isn’t the point. And it is definitely about some “what”, especially in its polemical function which takes the “who” of the Egyptian gods and demotes them to “what” in service to YHWH-Elohim.
What you really do is impose your modern worldview on the scriptures and thus get answers that people with modern worldviews can hold without having to actually study.
Don’t forget that Hebrew scholars back before we had science concluded solely on the basis of the text that the Creation is old beyond comprehension.
What still boggles my mind is that the writer used the structure of the Egyptian creation story but uses it to totally dis the Egyptian pantheon, turning the gods of the Egyptian version into created things made by YHWH-Elohim. If you think that Moses wrote the core of it that makes perfect sense: the Israelites would have been totally accustomed to hearing the Egyptian version so using its framework would have been a potent way to say, “They got it wrong”.
And I love to picture the reaction of Egyptian priests if they’d heard this new version!
Do we really need to have a debate about what Epistomology is?
Are you arguing secularism or what are you trying to do with this exactly? If this is a defense of atheism, then i feel that is not the position of Biologos founders.
Anyway, relying on the claim Israel copied Egyptians is very problematic given historically its almost certain that in fact Egypt got much of its knowledge from the Chaldeans…and guess who went into Egypt from that region?(Abraham). The point is, Israelite sanctuary service sacrficial system had nothing to do with Egypt. We know theologically, the sacrifical system was already in place at the time when Cain killed Abel.
Is it just me or does anyone else feel as if we’re trying to interact with a malfunctioning chatbot here?
I’ve lost count of the number of times that I and others have tried to explain to Adam that an old earth and secularism are two completely separate issues, but he simply doesn’t get it. It’s almost like the connection has been hard wired into his operating system at a deep and inextricable level.
Another giveaway is his repeated regurgitation of random evangelistic talking points in just about every response that he makes. While many of them are good in and of themselves, and points that I agree with wholeheartedly, they invariably do nothing whatsoever to address the specific points that he is responding to.
Thats because you straw pluck so much that you are demonstrating habits that indicate that one is not taking a holistic biblical approach in determining theology and doctrines. That is always dangerous.
For example, we all know that one will not find the word Trinity in the bible…we develop that doctrine because of a holistic biblical approach to theology and doctrine. The Trinity is an excellent example of the importance of that approach.
Choosing to straw pluck texts as a habit means one continues to blindly twist scripture in search of support for bad theology and doctrine aimed at finding support for secular evolution. Whether or not you like this, even well known scientists who follow evolution disagree that the TEism approach can be reconciled with the bible model. The two are completely at odds.
Now to address your claim a little more personally, as i do take offence at the sneaking jab at my intelligence…one thing that really annoys me is summed up in the following lifes experience i recall when i was teaching for 3 terms at Shore Grammar School in North Sydney Australia about 20 years ago before heading out into business for myself…
I recall walking from the school down to the local train station one afternoon after school and i came across a guy standing by his car on the side fo the road with a flat tyre and there in front was a mobile mechanic changing the tyre. The car was quite modern at the time and in very good condition…so to me, there were two reasons why the mobile mechanic was changing the tyre:
The guy was a complete imbecile incapable of lifting a jack, spare tyre and wheel brace out of the boot and fixing it himself or,
That guy was just plain lazy and since he had a roadside assistance policy, which is for those who are broken down on the side of the road and cannot help themselves out of the predicament, he choose to be an ass and take up valuable time of that mechanic who could have been helping genuine callouts!!!
So next time you wonder why Adam gives such exhaustive answers using a holistic theological approach in his responses (an approach that seems to go over the heads of quite a number of individuals here), remember the real life story about the mobile mechanic changing a fellow’s flat tyre in North Sydney!
No. No need for a debate - just a simple question for you to reflect on for yourself. No one here is surprised anymore that you remain unable to answer it.
The structure of a body of knowledge or justified belief, including whether all justified beliefs must be derived from justified foundational beliefs or whether justification requires only a coherent set of beliefs; and,
Philosophical scepticism, which questions the possibility of knowledge, and related problems, such as whether scepticism poses a threat to our ordinary knowledge claims and whether it is possible to refute sceptical arguments.
Evolution came into existence in the late 1800’s and the first fossil found, by Robert Plot (according to discovery.com) was in 1677. What evidence then were these early “Hebrew scholars” relying on for Old Age theology?
Addionally, the claim Hebrew Scholars believed in Old Age theology… that is very problematic given 2 Peter 2 (in fact the entire book of 2 Peter) disagrees with that statement and since we know Peter was the founding bishop of the Christian church who claimed he received revelation from Prophetic writings, Christ’s ministry, and divine revelation from God (almost certainly visions)… Do you not see the huge problem there?
Hebrew scholars traditionally would not have studied Old Age earth…they had the bible genealogies and given the early Hebrew Scholars were Pharisees and Sadducees (of which the apostle Paul prior to his conversion was one), that would be another problem with your statement. I think its unlikely that many Hebrew scholars thought this. Having said that, I would be interested in you quoting some as i would like to read their writings as a matter of historical interest.
Only a malfunctioning chatbot would think that accusing me of “straw plucking” when quote mining me to my face constituted “taking a holistic biblical approach in determining theology and doctrines.”
You left off the third possibility. The driver had a medical issue that prevented them from changing the tire. BTW, all medical issues are not visible to a third party. So your “holistic approach” appears to be defective.
Besides which, I completely fail to see what on earth the relevance of his anecdote about changing the car tyre had to anything else that he had to say either in his response to me, or to the context of this thread, to the Gospel itself, or even to young earthism. It was a complete non sequitur.
I’m a Catholic (or, as I prefer to say, a Christian who belongs to the Catholic Church) and I certainly don’t have anything “programmed into me”. I have a rule, never to blindly accept anything that any authority says, be it a “magisterium” or otherwise, but to question everything. I think you’ll find that few, if any, Catholics would accept every jot and tittle of the 600-page 30-years-old Catechism of the Catholic Church. No church is perfect as regards its official teaching (how many in the Church of England accept the 39 articles?) but for a variety of reasons the Catholic Church is good enough for me. But were it to return to pre-Vatican II days (which it certainly will not), i and many others would look elsewhere.