I think of history as “what happened, according to the historian.” I don’t think my definition is unusual, and a quick perusal of Google results confirms this. This more elaborate definition - Wikipedia’s opening paragraph on the subject - also suits me:
History (from Greek ἱστορία, historia, meaning “inquiry, knowledge acquired by investigation”) is the study of the past as it is described in written documents. Events occurring before written record are considered prehistory. It is an umbrella term that relates to past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of information about these events. Scholars who write about history are called historians. - “History” at Wikipedia
In other words, Mosaic Creationism (MC) does not employ an ad hoc definition of “history.”
MC does, however, employ an ad hoc distinction between history as it’s normally understood and “scientifically-generated history” (SGH). I’ll say more about that distinction when I answer your question about SGH below.
I do recall that you believe that the history recorded in Gen 1-11 needs to be distinguished from that in Gen 12 onward. I need to re-fresh my memory of your view and delve further with questions. I am not close-minded about your assumptions, but would need help with some obstacles if I’m to give serious consideration to adopting it. To be completely candid, it seems as if it’s driven by SGH’s conflicts with it. Having confessed that, here are the questions:
Do you think that the history recorded in the Bible from Gen 12 onward also needs to be distinguished from history as it’s generally understood or that it fits the definition of history as it’s generally understood?
I think you called Gen 1-11 “proto-history” and perhaps by some other term. You, or perhaps someone else holding a similar view, said that there was a difference between the narrative of Gen 1-11 and that which followed which was obvious to anyone reading it in Hebrew. Could you correct and clarify my impressions of these points?
I cannot make the distinction you asked for above (“And that needs to be defined for two groups, the ancient Hebrews and us”), but implicitly you can and do. Please give me those two definitions you use so I can have a better idea of how you distinguish the two - and just how easily distinguishable the two are.
You may recall that was looking for a biblically-principled, or at least principled, way of accepting the two kinds of history. I don’t recall us reaching that point in our prior discussion. Is there a way you can give me of distinguishing the two kinds of history that works for a non-reader of Hebrew like me?
I appreciate the question, and I appreciate the very fair way it is worded. I also appreciate that it is perfectly normal for a person to think, “If there is no conflict between the Bible and science there should likewise be no conflict between the Bible and the dates that the scientific method generates.” I even agree that “there should likewise be no conflict…” The problem is, there is conflict. And it is conflict impossible to ignore. And I am not the first person to notice it. In fact, the proliferation of biblical interpretations for Gen 1-2 alone (Gap, Day-Age, Revelation Day) right up to and including John Walton’s work are ample testimony to the fact that others have seen those conflicts…and have not found it easy to resolve them. For there would not be so many different interpretations if the first one, and any of the successive ones, were adequate to the task. I’ll say this for Walton’s approach: he doesn’t so much try to resolve the conflicts as he tries to eliminate the possibility of any conflicts. It’s a highly efficient approach…but, alas, he’s encountering his own resistance not only from YEC’s but from OEC’s like William Lane Craig who are those you’d think most likely to welcome a view like his.
When I read Genesis (or any of the Bible, for that matter) it does not take me much time at all to nod my head in agreement that it’s not teaching science. However, I cannot at all say the same thing when asked “Does it teach history?” For this reason I say that I see no conflict between the Bible and science but do see conflict between the Bible and SGH. I am not trying to see this conflict - rather, I can’t help but see it. And the many, many reinterpretations of Genesis over the past 200 years that SGH has been with us bear witness that I am not the only one who has seen it.
Now, you could still ask me: “Mike, even so, why can’t you let go of Genesis history, especially Gen 1-11 history - is what you’re giving up really that important in the light of Jesus’ resurrection?” I am willing to answer that question, but I don’t want to answer it if you’re not asking it, or if you want to word the question differently.
If I’ve not adequately covered everything you asked me in this post, please give me another shot. Otherwise, I look forward to your answers to my questions and any further comments you want to make.
I suppose they could all be categorized as scientifically-generated history (SGH).
I am scientifically ill-equiped to distinguish the relative reliability of such a variety of estimates. However, assuming they’re all valid from a scientific point of view, I would only question the ones that seem to conflict with biblical testimony.
I don’t share that view. I’m more than happy to continue trusting scientific conclusions on other things. For example, you’re well aware of my struggles with SGH and Genesis history, but it doesn’t affect at all my trust in the work of the coroner’s office in my county. Nevertheless, if someone I trust told me that he ate breakfast with his brother the day before yesterday, I would question the coroner’s report if it said the brother died a week ago.
That’s just the way I feel about God and His statements.
What is unusual is to hear you (or anyone) describe a scientific narrative regarding Cosmology and/or Geology and/or Biology - - and to hear it dismissed as “mere history”.
This is an abuse of the terminology. All sciences that review chains of cause-and-effect (that are not being discussed as a prediction) are - - necessarily - - historical in context. But mere history they certainly are not.
I can see what you’re driving at with progressive creation, but you might need to either change terminology or be more explicit about what “creation” entails. Right now it’s vague enough that it could be applied to any “new” thing, be it the new life of a human, or a new star being formed.
Because I am willing to employ a different term, your suggestion prompted me to look up "natural history.’ However, what I found did not fit what I have in view when I say SGH. I am thinking of history produced as a result of scientific inquiry that has no divine testimony to confirm it nor even the possibility of human testimony to confirm it (e.g. apparently no one thinks human beings have been around for billions of years so it would be impossible any of them to testify about that dating).
Thanks. See the revision I made to “The Day of Rest” section of the OP, as well as the notation about it at the end of the OP. Please let me know if it’s still unclear.
I will address your previous questions when I have some more time, but I just have to put in my $0.02 here.
So you wouldn’t accept the testimony of a medical examiner who certainly wasn’t present when the person died? Testimony couldn’t consist of the measurements made and cross checked?
Do you really believe Ken Ham’s “Where you there?” or are you just disallowing the science when it conflicts with your view of the Bible?
Evidence is here, so we can make inferences as to what happened in the past. It’s how we live our lives, actually. I can infer that birds ate my raspberries and the deer nibbled on my hostas. It’s what detectives do , what we do, and what scientists do.
[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:11, topic:36410”]
I suppose they could all be categorized as scientifically-generated history (SGH). [/quote]
Good start!
Then your SGH is just a post hoc contrivance and unconnected to principles.
Then SGH is useless in your quest. You’re starting with a conclusion and trying to rationalize it later, instead of starting from principles.
[quote]That’s just the way I feel about God and His statements.
[/quote]“That’s just the way I feel” is not stringent Biblical analysis, and you’re not-so-subtly moving the goalposts. We’re supposed to be discussing our differing interpretations of God and His statements.
You’re completely disregarding evidence, as well as the fact that scientific hypotheses predict observations that we don’t have yet. It doesn’t matter that the events happened in the past, it’s about whether we have the evidence now or in the future.
Are there any YEC oil exploration companies? Would you invest in one?
You may be right that this is the course our back-and-forth would take. If so, I agree with you that it’s more useful just to acknowledge this without putting ourselves through the wear-and-tear of actually doing it. That said, allow me to be as precise as I can about my position on each of these subjects to see if it in any way changes how you think our back-and-forth would play out.
My view on this turns almost completely on Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:12-7. I say this because I don’t know any other way to interpret the Lord’s “six days” in those passages as something different from our “six days,” and because I don’t know why He would put this rationale in there unless it was important to Him for us to think this way about the days of His creative activity.
I am not sure where we are in disagreement here. I thought you had stated in an earlier post that you agreed that we could use the genealogies to date the human race to thousands of years. If that’s the case, and if Adam is the first human being, and nothing existed before that, then why wouldn’t you be comfortable saying that the age of the earth is thousands of years?
It’s okay with me if neither of my two comments change your thinking. I just thought I should ask.
Perhaps you haven’t had a chance to read what I wrote earlier. I regularly accept the reports of medical examiners and would only question such a report if, for example, it said that my mother’s death was three days ago when my responsible and trustworthy brother tells me he had breakfast with her yesterday.
As I’ve repeatedly said, it has been my lifelong habit to trust scientific findings and I do not expect that to change. I only question them when I have some specific reason to do so - in the case above and in the case of Bible history, when I have testimony from a reliable source that I cannot easily ignore or dismiss.
Whew, I sure appreciate that, given how long it took me to write it. To know that it saved you time makes me feel good about my effort.
I can appreciate that, but, as for myself, I cannot figure out any other way to interpret Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:12-17 because 1) the internal logic of the passages falls apart if “six days” means something other than “six days,” and 2) because the passages say the same thing, therefore reinforcing each other. Do you really think that the logic of these passages allows the Lord’s “six days” to be symbolic while Israel’s were actual?
I agree with you about Jesus’ testimony. I’d even go farther and say that Moses is the only biblical witness we have to a six-day creation. As I said in the OP:
Therefore, I am not saying that Jesus explicitly affirmed the “six days and day of rest” - but only that He affirmed Moses’ reliability.
While I do not believe Jesus was omniscient during His time on earth (for one can hardly be a true human being without experiencing the vulnerability of limited knowledge), I do not believe He erred in anything He said, whether viewed contemporaneously or retrospectively.
Unless and until you ever change your views on the six days, however, a different view of Jesus’ testimony wouldn’t change your disagreement with me about creation.
I take your point. I was not trying to say what you think I was, but I can see that’s a logical inference a reader would make. Therefore, I’ve reworked the wording in the offending paragraph. Thanks.
I get your point, but I don’t think you got mine. You may be right that I muddied the water on this point. I’ll have to mull over whether I just expressed a good point clumsily or it wasn’t actually a point worth making. In either case, as I said when I made the point, it is a minor one. I just don’t feel comfortable calling times “young” that the Bible itself calls “ancient.” As I said, I’ll mull this over.
You may be right that YEC’s are doing people more good than I would be. I just have to be true to myself, including my limitations.
This is another point I’ll have to mull over. To omit this would leave me completely silent on the subject of science, which would not be true to myself either. I can see why you would call it a scientific argument. To me, however, it’s simply how I show respect for the reasonable opinions of others - especially of experts I respect. I wanted to make clear that I am not sticking my fingers in my ears.
As I stipulated, MC fails if Moses was not the author. I suspect many people, especially many people at BioLogos, accept some form of the documentary hypothesis. Such a view would disqualify MC on its face. Nonetheless, I’m convinced that Jesus considered the Law to be of Moses, and this means that the passages in question - Gen 1-2; Ex 20:8-11; and Ex 31:12-17 - carry the weight of his reputation.
I quite agree with you that “Authorship is not genre analysis.” Both are important. Let’s take them one at a time.
As for authorship, if Moses is not the author then to still make the case for MC one would have to identify the author and justify his or her veracity. I don’t think that’s practical, at least not for me. Therefore, I’m willing to let MC stand or fall on Mosaic authorship.
As for genre, I am reading Gen 1-2 through the lens of Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:17. In other words, if someone starting reading the Bible for the first time starting with Genesis, he might wonder whether Gen 1-2 was presenting history, but upon getting to Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:12-17, any doubt would be removed. At least, that’s how I think I’d react if I were that person. I can’t figure out any other way to read those two passages in Exodus except as confirming that creation took six days just as Gen 1-2 laid out.
It’s not merely that Jesus quoted Moses. It’s that it’s clear to me that Jesus wanted us to trust Moses’s testimony on whatever he testified to and I say this based on passages like Matt 5:17-19; John 5:46-47; and Luke 24:25-27. I don’t think Jesus was limiting his attestation of Moses, or David for that matter, to strictly their prophetic utterances, as if He was wanting withhold approval on their other forms of speech. It seems clear Jesus was wanting to attest to anything they said on God’s behalf. Besides, history is a lot easier for a human being to get right than prophecy. The question therefore is not whether or not Moses can be counted on to prophesy correctly; rather it is whether he can be counted on to speak for the Lord faithfully - whether prophecy, history, or anything else. What Moses and David said on their on behalf is another matter; this is about what they spoke in the name of the Lord. And, as you made appropriately clear in the beginning of this post, Moses was not relating Gen 1-2 to us on his own behalf.
Unfortunately, the weight of his reputation includes getting things a little off:
"He set another man before them, saying, “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field; which indeed is smaller than all seeds. But when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and becomes a tree…”
— Matthew 13:31–32
It’s a great story … and it would have been greater if he hadn’t thrown in the exaggeration that it was smaller than all seeds.
Then there’s his work for curing blind eyes: “Jesus mixes spittle with dirt to make a mud mixture, which he then places on the man’s eyes.” Certainly he could have performed the same miracle without spit … or without mud …
Your attempt to guard against error with the words and deeds of a man you don’t actually agree with all the time. You have alread told me that you reject the words of Jesus regarding his flesh and his blood. And you dilute the intention of his defense of the woman adulterer.
I can’t make any sense out of your insistence that Jesus somehow makes Genesis unrefutable … while you throw doubt against many of the events that depend on Jesus and what he says.
I had stated that scientific modelling conforms with the idea that Adam and Eve are our genealogical ancestors and data available from records and such support a period of 6-10,000 years.
This is not the same as providing an age for the earth. Thus we cannot calculate an age for the earth based on genealogical methods, be they scientific modelling or biblical genealogies.
An age for the earth may be deduced from geological and chemical/physics methods, but this cannot be compared to any biblical accounts for verification or refutation.
Thus, if my point of stating the bible clearly states a beginning of creation, and the seven days of creation are declarations, and Moses taught Israel to live by working (creating, building, prospering) for six days, and resting on the Sabbath, than we cannot link these days with other information to work out a date for the beginning of creation, or the age of the earth.
My point - we cannot find clear information from the bible for the age of the earth. All arguments are thus inferences and preferred outlooks. Science cannot possibly be at odds on the age of the earth or the creation, with any clear statements in the bible.
If my reasoning conforms with biblical teaching, than we cannot calculate an age for the earth from biblical sources.
So to repeat, I do not think you can link (without ambiguity) the ages from Adam, with an age of the earth.
Remember that Gen 1-11 covers history before the invention of writing. I always found it interesting that the portions of the OT that appear historical to our modern sense of history starts in Gen 12 which correlates with the invention of writing and the beginnings of the paleo-Hebrew language. So Gen 1-11 does need to be considered a different type of history. It was passed down to the author of Genesis as oral histories. This transmission was obviously over several thousand years. Now this raises an interesting question. How did Moses learn of this history. I assume he was recording the oral traditions that had been passed down. Another option would be for Moses to learn this in a vision that he didn’t record or even make mention of in passing. The last option would be for the Holy Spirit to provide the words for Moses to use which doesn’t fit the way Jesus described inspiration of the Scriptures. So how do you think Moses came up with the creation story?
I use pre-history. I think Christy used proto-history.
I have heard that when read in Hebrew it is easy to tell that Gen 1 and Gen 2 were written by two people, but this is part of the documentary hypothesis which you do not agree with. But to me the simple fact that the two chapters contain a different order of creation is enough to tell me the same author didn’t write both and an editor has put together the two different versions of creation. Also one is written as poetry and the other as a narrative. A quick Google search turned up this Texts of Genesis: J, E, and P which might be helpful.
Genesis has been subjected to reinterpretations for much more than 200 years which has been pointed out several times. Origen, late 2nd century, suggested all of Scripture should be interpreted allegorically. These reinterpretations have not always been driven by trying to avoid conflicts with SGH.
I have never said you should let go of the Genesis history. The truths that it contains are written as if they are history. I am just saying hold tight to the truth, but not so tight to the history. For whatever reason this is not hard for me to do.
The point I was trying to make is you accept SGH completely up to about 6,000 years ago. After that point you totally reject science even if it doesn’t conflict with the Bible. This is what I have a hard time understanding.
You might want to add “as I understand them” to the end of that sentence and reflect on that “I”.