I wonder how many people here recognize that since coming to this forum in late June, I have been attempting to falsify my hypothesis. Being scientifically unsophisticated, I did not originally think of my mission in those terms. But having been here a while, and having picked up on some of your terminology, I now see that my purpose in being here can rightly be described using those words. Even when I altered tack a time or two or three, it was only to better pursue that end; I’ve not once forsaken that goal.
I genuinely appreciate those of you who understand what I’ve been trying to do. It’s clear not everyone does.
So, would I be correct in thinking of you as an OEC, but not an EC?
The reason I’m asking is that I thought most regulars here were EC. (Because your profile says you’ve been here since Jan 2015, I assumed you were a regular.)
In any case, I’ve put my guesses out here for you to correct or confirm. Thanks.
None of the above. I am an Orthodox Christian (most refer to us as Eastern Orthodox), and I entered the Biologos forum because I have recently became aware of the arguments amongst evangelicals and ID opponents. EC, TE, OEC are fairly new terms to me. My interest as a scientist has included understanding both faith and science, and this has been a long standing activity - I have regarded evolution as an inadequate theory, and have focused mainly on maths, physics and chemistry (the hard sciences). I found the intensity shown to evolution by evangelicals, ID and atheists fascinating, although this has tapered of.
I was doing some reading last night on the way Jesus used the OT. In talking about the temptation of Jesus it was mentioned that the 40 years Israel spent wandering in the desert was a type for the 40 days Jesus spent in the desert. And it struck me that to the original audience what was important was the 40 not the days or years. To me days and years are quite different and I actually had never connected the two events. The other details of the two stories really do reinforce the connection but the simple fact that a year is 365.25 days prevented me from seeing it. It is really hard to take off those world view glasses at times.
I’m open-minded about it. I can see the entire account being revealed to him by God at Sinai, but even if that were the case, I can’t imagine Moses thinking to himself, “I had no idea!” In other words, some portion of the story - whether minor or near all - likely was transmitted originally from Adam and Eve (to whom God could have revealed it much as He would have with Moses) down through the messianic line, including Seth and Noah. Neither, therefore, do I think Moses’ story would have been a shocking revelation to his fellow Israelites. All of this, however, is just speculation on my part; what’s important to me is that Moses said on behalf of God “This is the way it was.”
I don’t feel that same need. Gen 1-11 does represent a more distant past to the writer, and thus understandably provides less detail and is obscured by more cultural differences - but this I see as gradations of detail, not an occasion to bifurcate Genesis into two different kinds of history. After all, the story of Abraham was one step closer to Moses than that of Terah but one step more removed from Isaac’s story, which was one step more removed than Jacob’s story and so on.
I have heard this, too - but I have also heard from people who read Hebrew equally well and yet don’t see two writers being required. Nor does my reading in English cause me to think there are two different writers. So, I see no more need to bifurcate Gen 1 from Gen 2 than I do Gen 1-11 from Gen 12-50.
I would call Gen 1 lyrical prose - not poetry. Line up Gen 1 against the Psalms or any other poetic portion of the OT and you will see a difference.
It does sound like you would be very comfortable with some form of the documentary hypothesis.
The most common shorthand referent for the documentary hypothesis is JEPD. I was first exposed to it in seminary many years ago. My professors, however, all stood against it; nevertheless, they taught it alongside their views so as to not shortchange our education. My dislike for it is longstanding.
What I don’t understand, relative to your position, is if Gen 1-11, or significant portions thereof, were written or collated in, for example, the Babylonian exile, why would you be able to notice as abrupt a change as you describe you do when you move from reading Gen 1-11 to Gen 12-50? In other words, how is it that the non-Mosaic authors were able to leave so little trace of their own hands on Gen 1-11?
I am surprised that you would say this. I have not said that Gen 1-2 was interpreted uniformly up until 200 years ago - only that there has been a relatively rapid and unprecedented proliferation of varying interpretations of Gen 1-2 in the last 200 years. I don’t see how anyone can deny this.
This sounds to me like (though I’m not saying it’s the same thing as) saying the history of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is not necessary to its truth.
I don’t understand why this is hard to understand. If the Bible is saying that creation cannot be dated older than thousands of years, then anything described as taking place millions or billions of years ago is disallowed. I’m only disallowing the SGH that conflicts with the Bible - just like I’d only question a coroner’s report if it contradicted reliable human testimony.
I would have added it to mine if you had added it to the sentence of yours that I was mirroring.
Maybe, Bill, you and I have gone as far as we can with Genesis. Can you spend some time on the two Exodus passages that are so critical to me? As I’ve been saying, it’s not reading Gen 1-2 in isolation that leads me to Mosaic Creationism (MC), it’s the institution of the Sabbath in Ex 20:8-11 and its reinforcement in Ex 31:12-17, combined with they way those two passages view Gen 1-2.
As I showed you, one of the earliest interpretations of the Genesis creation (in the pre-Christian era), was that the creation account was revealed to Moses, at Sinai, in a vision. So you’re already halfway to my view.
As I have shown, non-Mosaic authors left an extremely large and very clear trace of their own hands on Genesis 1-11. That’s one of the reasons why there’s such an abrupt break between Genesis 1-11 and Genesis 12-50.
If Matthew or Luke had reported in this instance that the Holy Spirit in leading Jesus into the wilderness said to Him, “Because Israel spent 40 days in the wilderness, you shall spend 40 days in the wilderness,” it would establish a way of interpreting Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:12-17 that could falsify MC. Of course, it would also cause any logical person familiar with Israel’s 40 years in the desert to scratch his head.
Certain numbers - such as 40, 12, 7 - find NT use in a way that the OT often foreshadows. This is a very different matter, however, from the internal logic on display in the two Exodus passages mentioned above.
Wonderful paragraph! And this would be consistent with how millions of pro-Evolution Christians tend to look at scripture – apparently without damnation quickly following along.
On the authorship of the Pentateuch/Torah:
This may have appeared in another thread. I cannot keep track. Sorry. Anyway, there seemed to be a lot of confusion about Jesus’ language in referring to “the Law of Moses,” “the Law,” & etc, in the gospels. What is getting lost in that conversation is that all of those references are not limited to the Decalogue (10 Commandments) and/or the various other laws (whether considered individually or as a group) in the Torah. The Law and the Prophets was a shorthand way to refer to the entirety of the Hebrew Bible. The Law (of Moses) is short for the Pentateuch/Torah. I don’t think it works to try to limit those sayings of Jesus only to the Decalogue in order to maintain Mosaic authorship of that portion.
In any case, based upon Deut. 34 alone, we know that someone else besides Moses had a hand in the finished product, so you can’t take Jesus’ statements to mean that he believed Moses wrote every single word of the Torah. As mentioned earlier, when Jesus refers to the Law of Moses, he is not doing anything other than referring to the Torah in the same way that every other Jew referred to it. Trying to read more (or less) into it than that leads only to more problems.
Second, based upon the manuscript history of the New Testament, we can assume that some scribal additions/edits/errors were incorporated into the text over the many years it was copied and passed down. For example, it’s pretty clear that the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1-11) was a later addition to John’s gospel, and the “longer ending” of Mark is obviously inauthentic. Christians read and believed these things for centuries before recent discoveries allowed us to “correct” the gospels. Was the faith of those previous generations who read and accepted these stories as “true” in any way defective? No. God’s word will achieve the purpose for which he sent it (Is. 55:11). The divine nature of God’s word is self-authenticating, both in its prophetic character and in its spiritual effect on the elect. God’s sheep hear his voice and follow. Those who hear his voice in the Scriptures do not have to be convinced that they are authoritative. It is self-evident.
The approach you’re looking for, Mike, is called “canonical interpretation.” Essentially, it sets aside questions of source and authorship and deals with the text of the Bible as it has come down to us in the canon. Whether the three passages in question came from the actual pen of Moses or not is moot, in this hermeneutic approach. However, canonical interpretation also deals with the Bible as an actual piece of literature, complete with types and symbols and metaphors, which is something that you’ve previously resisted. You may be stuck between a rock and a hard place here.
Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:12-17 with respect to God’s six days and rest
What principle is Moses trying to teach here? Why does he instruct Israel to pattern their work-week after God’s example?
It is the same principle expressed in Gen. 1:26-28 – that God has created man in his image; therefore, man should “imitate” God. This is Israel collectively taking up the task that Adam failed to fulfill. The imitation of God is also the basis of Jewish (and later, Christian) ethics. For example, this article on “The Imitation of God” at the Jewish Virtual Library says:
The doctrine of the imitation of God is related to the biblical account of the creation of man in the image of God, which acknowledges a resemblance between man and his Creator. Yet man is to imitate God, not impersonate Him (see Gen. 3:5). The main biblical sources for the injunction to imitate God are found in the command to be holy as God is holy and to walk in God’s way (Lev. 19:2; Deut. 10:12, 11:22, 26:17). Man is to be God-like in his actions, but he cannot aspire to be God. … Man is to imitate God in loving the stranger (Deut. 10:18–19); in resting on the Sabbath (Ex. 20:10–11); and in other ethical actions. The idea of the imitation of God finds clear expression in rabbinic writings, especially the statements of the tanna Abba Saul. On the verse, “This is my God and I will glorify Him” (Ex. 15:2), he comments: “Be like Him. Just as He is gracious and merciful, so be thou also gracious and merciful” (Mekh., Shirah, 3). Abba Saul also comments on the verse, “You shall be holy as I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2) – “The household attendants of the king, what is their duty? To imitate the king” (Sifra 19:2). Another classic expression of the ideal of imitating God in rabbinic literature is that of ?ama bar ?anina, who expounded the verse, “After the Lord your God ye shall walk” (Deut. 13:5): “How can man walk after God? Is He not a consuming fire? What is meant is that man ought to walk after [imitate] the attributes of God. Just as the Lord clothes the naked, so you shall clothe the naked. Just as He visits the sick, so you shall visit the sick. Just as the Lord comforted the bereaved, so you shall also comfort the bereaved; just as He buried the dead, so you shall bury the dead.”
To sum up, Moses chose to represent God’s creative “labor” in terms of a normal work-week in order to establish the ethical principle that man is meant to imitate God. This is taken up by Jesus (Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect) and expounded at length by the apostles:
And he said to all, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us.
Be imitators of me, just as I also am of Christ.
the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.
So, the principle that Moses establishes is that man is to imitate God in everything, even in our mundane, everyday tasks. This is the foundation of ethics. That is the important thing about this passage, not whether it can be applied literally to Genesis 1.
Not sure if this was any help or not, but hang in there …
In this kind of “free-for-all” discussion that revolves around a single person’s questions/views, I think it is wise of the OP (in this case, Mike) to focus energy only on the most fruitful/wholesome discussion points, instead of trying to answer every single question or remark.
What’s your point? You don’t think the original audience of Luke would connect the 40 days to the 40 years without the introduction? As you said certain numbers have meaning in and of themselves. The units attached usually don’t matter. How many times in prophecy are long periods of time referred to as “days”? You don’t think it is possible that the important part of the 7 days was just the number 7? I still find it hard to picture God as taking any more than an instant of time if he was creating the universe at his command.
I’ve always thought this was a puzzling text: “let him take up his cross daily…”
Is this something that Jesus really said long before he would actually live those words?
Or is it something that a later writer paraphrased into these words?
Did Jesus say, “Blessed are the poor” (Luke 6:20), or “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matt. 5:3)?
Your question comes down to this:
"In technical terms, this discussion centers on whether the Gospels contain the ipsissima vox of Jesus (“His very voice,” i.e., His teaching summarized) or the ipsissima verba of Jesus (“His very words”). The proponents of ipsissima vox maintain that the gospel writers never intended to give a verbatim account of Jesus’ words, but rather took the liberty to edit His words to fit their own purposes in writing. Under the ipsissima vox view, “the concepts go back to Jesus, but the words do not—at least, not exactly as recorded.”
“Ipsissima vox proponents usually support their position by asserting that it is consistent with the general standards of recording speeches in ancient secular history. Supporters argue that classic historians did not use modern quotation marks to set off precise quotations, and as a result, the accepted practice was to be “faithful to the meaning of the original utterance,” while the exact phrasing was left to the discretion of the writer. Writers who so framed their quotations would not be accused of distortion or inaccurate reporting.”
The article I quoted is here, if you want to pursue the topic some more.
Edit: Here’s an example of the questions that arise: Koine Greek had no such thing as quotation marks. In John 3, Jesus is having a discussion with Nicodemus, but we are not sure if the narrator’s comments begin at John 3:16 (!!!), or if this is still Jesus speaking. My response is: Who cares?
That was the view of the earliest interpreters of Scripture in the Patristic era. They routinely emphasized the instantaneous nature of God’s creative acts.
I think you will find that YECs do care about such ideas.
But frankly, I found the helpful distinction between “ipsissima verba” vs. “ipsissima vox” to be a refreshing breeze of reality and pragmatism! And if this is a doctrinal element out of the eons-old academic stream of the Roman Catholic Church or Orthodox Churches, I celebrate it enthusiastically.
I think you will find that @Mike_Gantt would be pretty well resistant to the value of “Ipsissima Vox” - - since the only thing he is willing to acknowledge are the specific words precariously hung on the pages of English Bibles everywhere.
Christy, I find the following two exchanges between the two of us particularly helpful, though perhaps not for the reason you might initially think. Let me first show the two exchanges and then explain what I find particularly helpful about them.
and
I describe these two exchanges as particularly helpful, because having identified where our respective views align (the authority of Moses), we can focus on the more narrow area of where they diverge (i.e. whether Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:12-17 call for Gen 1-2 to be considered a historical account). I’ll let your words frame the issue:
Now, given the excitement I expressed about our having gotten away from having to discuss authorship of the Torah any further, enabling us to focus on what Ex 20:8-11; Ex 31:12-17; and Gen 1-2 harmonize to say about creation, you might expect that I had a real clear idea of how to take the next step in our conversation. Alas, I don’t. Nevertheless, I do think you and I have made progress to get to this point. And I have an idea or two that might lead to a next step…eventually. Maybe.
It may be that we’ve achieved all the progress we can. Here is the specific place at which our view are stuck at a distance:
For you, the second half of that sentence is a giant leap; for me, it’s one small step. And I don’t know how to bring the two of us together except to share some more of my thoughts and ask you reciprocate with some more of yours.
When you mention the OT literary devices used to foreshadow Messiah, my heart rejoices - I love those things! Truly, the OT was about Christ in manifold ways that will continue to be unfolded to us in ages to come. In the meantime, I love every one of those understandings I’m able to receive - including all the ones you mentioned. However, what I see going on in Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:12-17 is much more pedestrian, if no less profound. I see the text confirming that the Lord created the universe in six days. Does this mean every point made in Gen 1-2 is historical? Maybe not, but it sure means that the six days is - unless I just don’t know how to read or think properly.
In other words, I do not know how to walk away from Ex 20:8-11; Ex 31:12-17; and Gen 1-2 thinking that the creation took any more or less than six days. On the other hand, you do. Help me understand that. I get that maybe there’s a lot more involved with “Gen 1-2 being a historical account” in your mind that makes you resist accepting that idea. But if you “get that creation is presented in six days and that is given as the rationale for Sabbath rest,” tell me more about why you’re uncomfortable just saying that creation took six days? (I understand why you’d be uncomfortable saying that from a scientific point of view, but I’m asking why you’d be uncomfortable saying it from a biblical point of view.)
Actually, the “ipsissima vox proponents” that the author cites are two professors at Dallas Theological Seminary, which is a conservative Dispensational school. One of them is Darryl Bock, who is probably the leading evangelical scholar on all things related to Luke-Acts. The other is Daniel Wallace, whose Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is a standard textbook at seminaries of all stripes. I really don’t know the status of this question among Catholic or Orthodox scholars.
Incidentally, I just thought of another example from John 3. The crux of Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus involves the Greek word anothen, which can mean either “from above” or “again,” depending on the context. Jesus may have had both meanings in mind, but Nicodemus seizes upon the latter, which prompts Jesus to correct his misunderstandings. The entire conversation revolves around this double entendre (a technique John is fond of employing), but is it likely that Jesus and Nicodemus had this conversation in Greek? There is no way to know, but probably not. But in translating it for his Greek speaking audience, John has added another layer of meaning under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
On the contrary, I think the original audience would get the “40” reference faster than most of us would - at least the Jews among them would, who could then give an elbow poke to the nearby Gentiles to let them in on the allusion. A verbal prod from Luke would only have spoiled the effect, in the same way that a comedian spoils the effect of his joke if he tries to explain too much.
My point? That’s what’s going on here is very different from what was going on in Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:12-17. Moses (i.e. God) was not speaking in allusive, shadowy, impressionistic terms. Rather, he was explicitly and directly saying that the Israelites should work six days and then rest…just as God did when He created the heavens and the earth. MC fails if a reader can get around this. I don’t see how to get around it.
Yes, yes, yes! A thousand times, yes! I could not agree with you more. That’s one more thing that makes this subject so utterly fascinating. If I had never read or even heard about the Bible, and you asked me how long God took to create the universe, I don’t think I would ever guess “six days.” Ever. Like you, my first guess would probably be “an instant of time.” Even if you gave me a billion years to guess, I still don’t know how I’d ever come up with “six days.” It just sounds crazy.