One aside that affects our modern so-called “veneration” for the Decalogue.
I agree, Jay. BUT the use of the Name of YWHW has been removed from the English Bible and is rarely heard for a number of scholarly, and not so scholarly justifications. Yet he said “This is my name for all generations…” (Exdous 3:15)
Just for the Jews use??? I am not convinced.
Using “The LORD” is certainly eschewing the name (thanks @gbrooks9 for that word). We are certainly not obeying it. The LORD is a title, not his NAME!
True, but they also began to meet on Sunday (the Lord’s Day, Rev. 1:10) to distinguish themselves from the Jews, especially in the aftermath of the Jewish War and the persecutions they experienced, and the early Christians never called it Sabbath.
It’s not really a straw man, because it demonstrates that the age of the earth was not the primary concern of Moses. As the author of the article said, Scripture elsewhere has no problem adding up ages and generations to come up with a hard-and-fast number. We are told the number of years from Joseph to the Exodus and the number of years from the Exodus to the temple. Matthew neatly divides Jesus’ genealogy to create 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 from David to the exile, and 14 from the exile to the Christ. Only with the Genesis genealogies do we not see this feature. If Moses was concerned to establish the age of the earth, why this silence? Why are these genealogies the only ones treated this way in Scripture? If the age of the earth was actually of any importance, let alone primary importance, wouldn’t God have made it explicit, which is your own criteria of establishing importance?
Maybe, just maybe, it was God’s intent to provide a description of his creative activity that would satisfy every generation of mankind, from pre-scientific to today and on until tomorrow. Maybe, just maybe, God intended to communicate greater and more important things than how long it took.
The binary choice between two interpretations of Gen. 1 is this: 1) Did God create in 6 literal days, and Moses merely reported that fact and drew a lesson for the Israelites from it in the Decalogue? or 2) Did God create over a long period of time, and Moses chose to represent it as 6 days in order to teach the Israelites an ethical principle?
Since we have extra-biblical evidence that supports interpretation #2 but not #1, I choose #2.
Yes but you have a different understanding of what “fixed” means.
But you don’t. You are aware that with continental drift even as you stand “still” the ground is literally moving under your feet. You have a greater understanding than they had.
That would be totally new knowledge unrelated to the earth moving. You could call it progressive revelation by God using nature and science. And if there can be progressive revelation for our understanding of nature why could there not also be progressive revelation for our understanding of history? Why can nature be changeable but not history?
And it is. Does an adult have a good reason to tell their children about Santa Claus? When a small child asks “Where did I come from?” does a parent have a good reason not to go into all the details of reproduction? Would that make the facts of reproduction false?
Could the disparity be explained by the difference in knowledge between the ancients and us?
Sometimes I think your biggest hurdle is just coming to an understanding of WHY God did it this way. Sorry to say but no one can know the mind of God and the why question really can’t be answered.
Bill, I wanted to provide a Hebrew exegesis reminder to the scriptures you cited in relation to “The earth does not move”:
And that is my interest as well: What did these verses mean to the original audience?
If we look up these two verses in the Hebrew Bible, you will notice the key words ERETZ and TEBEL. I have already made the point on many occasions that ERETZ primarily means “land”, “nation”, “region” and sometimes even works like “the ground” in English. TEBEL has sometimes been called “the poetic equivalent of ERETZ” [which can sometimes confuse the issue, IMHO, though I see the point], but it too should not be automatically assumed to refer to planet earth.
I compare the Hebrew word TEBEL to the Greek word KOSMOS in the New Testament. KOSMOS was often used to refer to the inhabited world while GE in Greek often referred to the entire planet of rocks and continents. Thus, 2Peter 3 refers to the Noahic flood judgment by water as destroying the KOSMOS, inhabited world of people, while the future judgment by fire will destroy the GE, the entire planet earth. And when God so loved the WORLD in John 3:16, he loved the people of that world, not the rocks and continents (in which case the Greek text would have used GE instead of KOSMOS.)
[KOSMOS is also used at times to refer to the entire order of things in the universe. A lexicographic commentary on KOSMOS gets quite complicated, but it is very difficult to discuss any of the English Bible scriptures involving the words “earth” or “world” without first checking to see what is behind the translation in the Hebrew or Greek original texts.]
We are reminded of how the ancient Hebrews thought of the TEBEL when the Psalmist says:
Ps 97:4 His lightnings lighted up the world [TEBEL]; the earth [ERETZ] saw, and trembled.
Notice that “planet earth” doesn’t really make a great equivalent for TEBEL here (nor for ERETZ, for that matter, without providing a translation footnotes and a bit of commentary.) Is the Bible claiming in Psalm 97:4 that God’s individual lightning strikes are visible throughout the planet? No. Is the passage claiming that every region of the planet experiences lightning? No. What we must keep in mind that when the ancient Hebrews talked about TEBEL and ERETZ, they were basically thinking about their daily experience----where the above was the HASHAMAYIM (the heavens) and the below was the ERETZ (the land.) Indeed, for them, “the heavens and the earth”, as in Genesis 1:1, was a kind of idiom for our words “the universe.” Yet, both TEBEL and ERETZ were usually viewed as a “personal phenomenon” they experienced because it referred to where they lived: the land, that is, their world.
So my caution is as before, when people today say “The Bible claims that the earth cannot be moved”, they assume that that means “The Bible claims that planet earth doesn’t move.” But that is not at all what was on the minds of the Hebrews. They were saying something far more obvious: We live on solid ground, and even if earthquakes and mudslides happen at times, we plant our feet on solid ground. We build houses on stable foundations which will still be here tomorrow. Other things move around all the time and can even be moved by people. But only YHWH can move the ERETZ----because God established the ERETZ and it cannot be moved by others! Only God has that power.
The moment people today make statements like “The Bible says that planet earth doesn’t move.”, they’ve already started falling into an anachronistic fallacy hole. I’m NOT saying that the ancient Hebrews had a scientifically sound cosmology. They did not. They had lots of wrong views. Yet, I’m emphasizing that they weren’t trying to make the kinds of scientific statements or even the emphasis upon cosmological statements which many people today imagine.
Frankly, I wish all English Bible translations of the Hebrew Old Testament would stop using the word EARTH. Too many English readers will automatically assume that EARTH means “planet earth”, when that is an anachronistic label which wouldn’t have made sense in that culture. [Of course, “the circle of the earth” that is often gleefully cited by many popular apologetics website is NOT an ancient reference to the earth being a sphere. That is so wrong that it makes me nauseous. “The circle of the ERETZ/land” refers to the horizon and the disk of land on which every person with eyes knows that they live. We all live on an ERETZ which you observe every time you step outside: you see a disk of land extending to the horizon in all directions no matter where you look! That is exactly what the ancient Hebrews were talking about—and it is also an entirely valid “scientific description” of one’s world.
Bill, you might find interesting my impromptu translations/paraphrases of the two verses you quoted:
Psalm 104:5 He established THE GROUND WE WALK UPON and its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.
Psalm 93:1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: THE INHABITED WORLD also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
In this manner, we generally side-step any implication that the Psalmist was describing the shape and absolutely motionlessness of planet earth.
This is also a good illustration of why Bible translator have a really hard job.
I have not said that Moses was concerned to establish an age of the earth.
There are all sorts of issues we have to deal with in modern times that were not made explicit in the Bible. Does this mean that all these modern issues must be relegated to unimportance? Should we tell people asking about transgenderism that it’s not important and none of us need to be talking about it because the Bible is not explicit about it? Should we tell people struggling with the morality of commercial third-party reproduction that they’re obsessing over something that the Bible doesn’t think is important? Is the Bible’s omission of any prohibition against same-sex “marriage” God’s way of making sure that people never think that He cares which side they take on the issue?
The reason that the age of the earth is important is not because God - or Moses, for that matter - has said it’s important, but rather because humanity has said it’s important. And I don’t just mean scientists, I mean practically all of pop culture, for it’s practically impossible to escape some allusion or even explicit reference to the age of the earth in the course of a day when exposed for any length of time to mass or social media. Whether it’s a PBS program calling us to join in swooning over Neil deGrasse Tyson’s latest riff on how we’re all stardust, or political pundits tut-tutting presidential candidate Scott Walker for being too slow to say he accepts the truth of evolution, modern man has made quite an issue of the age of the earth - insisting that it is billions of years older than anyone whose only exposure to ancient history is the Bible would ever think.
Neither I nor the Bible have made the age of the earth an important issue. The scientific age already did that. I’m just trying to cope with that reality, and, as with any important issue, I look to the Bible for guidance. When I do, what I find staring me in the face is a book that has resisted two hundred years of exegetical effort to either make it agree with billions of years or, if not, shut up. One thing that BioLogos adherents have in common is that they have no common way to interpret the Bible on the subject of origins.
I’ve spent most of my Christian life avoiding the issues of age of the earth and evolution. It’s seeing the importance modern society places on it, and the effect this is having on today’s young people, that has forced me to face it head on. I find the Bible bearing a relatively quiet witness on the subject, but a witness nonetheless.
@Casper_Hesp,
Could you explain what is the alternative less heretical approach would be? Perhaps this is a semantic snafu? I was under the impression that we were discussing the topic in the same way?
If what we have is “a description of his creative activity that would satisfy every generation of mankind, from pre-scientific to today and on until tomorrow,” why have day-age, gap, literary framework, John Walton, and assorted other interpretations and variations popping up in the last 200 years?
Can you say more about why Moses or God would feel it necessary to misrepresent reality in order to teach the Israelites an ethical principle? Are you saying they could not have taught the ethical principle without giving an erroneous time frame for creation?
You give me too much credit. Whatever continental drift is doing to my life is well beyond my notice.
You were responding here to my comment about our ability to go to the moon and back. As I undertand it, it would be impossible to chart a course to the moon and back unless you knew that the earth was moving.
I agree that there can be. The problem, however, is when a new revelation seems to contradict the word of God. That’s what causes us to have these discussions.
Because we can’t change the past. Even God doesn’t change the past; otherwise, He could have avoided the cross by rewinding the Eve tape.
No, except to explain that it’s a fiction. I cannot conceive of telling my children something was true that I would one day have to tell them was not true. It’s repugnant on multiple levels.
There is indeed good reason to exercise discretion in such matters, but discretion merely requires the avoidance of details - not the construction of fictions. The stork idea is as batty as Santa Claus. If you’re trying to raise your children to believe in an invisible Jesus, you’re working against yourself if you simultaneously teach them about an invisible figure who’s not there.
I see no reason whatsoever to think that the ancients couldn’t have handled descriptions of the creation that involved, say, “untold ages of time.” I think they were probably as flummoxed by the “six-day” explanation as we are. There was just no one around pushing an alternative answer at them like we have today.
Bill, I can certainly agree with you that God’s mind is way beyond my ability to discern. But to comfort you, be assured I’m only trying to figure out the piece of it He’s revealed to us in the Bible.
Hope all is going well for you on this Lord’s Day.
I think you need to add some more assumptions to you original post, Mike. Foremost among them:
1. I should expect the Bible to provide complete, clear answers to every question considered important in every age, regardless of the subject matter.
Also, lengthy discussion has revealed other assumptions:
2. God expects me to use the Bible to infer conclusions to scientific and historical questions, even when the Bible itself does not seem to care about the inference.
Also,
3. God intended for the view of creation in 6 days to be interpreted by Israel in a literal, historical manner, and He intends for that interpretation to be authoritative even in the age of the New Covenant.
Also.
4. Sola Scriptura means that when different scholars offer different, good faith interpretations of the Scripture that all rely on Scriptural authority, we cannot look to other forms of evidence outside the Scriptures to select the most likely interpretation.
[quote=“Mike_Gantt, post:220, topic:36410”]
Should we tell people asking about transgenderism that it’s not important and none of us need to be talking about it because the Bible is not explicit about it?[/quote]
We should be saying there’s no Bible-based position on it other than: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Yes, unless it impacts on the Great Commandment quoted above.
[quote]Is the Bible’s omission of any prohibition against same-sex “marriage” God’s way of making sure that people never think that He cares which side they take on the issue?
[/quote]Yes. You’re making it clear that you’re listening far more to your church’s political stances than you are to the Bible.
What about divorce and taking in strangers? Christ’s position on those is literal and clear.
So, let the clarification of the clarifications continue…
Firstly, my reference to your congregation was intended merely to mean the congregation where you attend.
Secondly, I am flattered that you find me difficult to read; I find you equally so.
Thirdly, it has been my observation that the posts you are most likely to ignore are the one’s I am most seriously concerned about… which makes me doubt your intentions behind these discussions. I don’t believe there is a single post of yours I haven’t answered… and some I have answered more than once.
Fourth, please don’t confuse my willingness to throw some humor into the discussion with my treating any of your discussion as a parlor game. I consider this process to be a fairly grave proceeding. . . Hence my occasional attempt to lighten the mood.
The only thing that I find similar to any parlor game is that we are seriously weighing the relative merits for the Genesis Creation account, which presents one incredible proposition after another:
o creation of the Earth before the sun;
o creation of light before the Sun;
o counting of days before the Sun;
o creation of birds before land animals;
o creation of a solid Firmament;
o introducing a talking snake as the beginning of all human troubles;
o punishing Adam & Eve for a transgression made before they knew the difference of good and evil;
o all of this ultimately leading to a post-creation regional flood story that becomes distorted into an impossible global flood.
I’m a grown man and I still can’t believe stories like these form the faith core of generations of YECs.
Yes I read his comments, but even if you translate it as the dirt under my feet the modern understanding is the dirt can move. If you stand with your feet on opposite sides of a geologic fault your feet will move even if the movement is too small to notice. That is what I meant when I say we have a greater understanding of nature than the ancients.
I am not talking about changing the past, just our understanding of the words that were written to describe the past. Socratic.Fanatic mentioned in his post, “I’m NOT saying that the ancient Hebrews had a scientifically sound cosmology.” So in effect we disregard their cosmology because our modern understand of cosmology is different. Nobody, except the Flat Earthers, thinks this is a problem or does violence to God’s Word. The reason for the change is what science tells us. So if science tells us that the Hebrews did not have a scientifically sound history why is it not possible to likewise disregard the written history that we know is not correct? What is the difference? Both cosmology and history are recorded in the Word of God.
This would not change the essence of my response to you.
I can accept that; I hope that you can accept that I have no reliable way of discerning which of your posts are more important to you than others.
You’ve expressed this doubt about my intentions before, which is another reason why I have been, and will continue to be, selective in my responses to you. Life is too short, and there’s too much work to be done, to interact with people who doubt your intentions. So much energy gets wasted.
You are perhaps the most prolific poster I have encountered at BioLogos. I don’t know who can keep up with you. I sure can’t.
That said, just because you write a “response” to me doesn’t necessarily mean you’ve answered me. And when you respond in ways that don’t incorporate acceptance of what I’ve explained to you, or, worse yet, misrepresentations of what I’ve said, I’d have been better off if you hadn’t responded.
Indeed, you have. Hence, the badger emoji.
Of course. Good-natured and light-hearted humor can be a blessing in these discussions. My “parlor game” comment had nothing to do with that, which I appreciate in a person; rather, it had to do with the gamemanship and flippancy that show up in some of your comments.
You are able to present more issues than any one person can reasonably address. You certainly differ with me on far more biblical issues than we will have time to address together.
Alas, I expect that you will continue to be disappointed in my rate of, or lack of, response to your posts. Let me therefore take this opportunity to say that I respect you as a serious person. However, there are too many differences between us, most notably our respective views on my intentions, for us to be able to have very many productive interactions in this forum.
Yes, we do have a greater understanding. But we have to translate the text on their terms, not ours. For example, you assume that the ground on each side of a fault line has moved even if a person standing there and straddling the fault didn’t feel any movement. Yet, in many cultures they would find that claim absurd and illogical. In many cultures, they would assume that if the movement can’t be noticed by a person standing there, it is perfectly valid for a speaker to state that the ground did not move. It is a difference in worldview and expression.
Indeed, because Brownian motion is always present, should we impose a “rule” on English speakers saying that it is NEVER valid to speak of anything being fixed or unmoving—and claim that science demands such a rule? Should every book which speaks of a stable or unmoving surface be corrected?
As I’ve said, I don’t see the Bible teaching science, but I do see it teaching history. If the Bible is the word of God, I don’t see how we can say it has taught us something erroneous that needs correction.
If God is indeed speaking to us through science and correcting something He said in the Bible, it looks something like this: “Remember when I said six days and rest? Well, it’s actually billions of years and ongoing.” To do such a thing seems to me utterly senseless and completely unnecessary. At least with His suffering on the cross, I see the point of the absurdity.
A confirmed YHWHist!