Examining the Assumptions of Mosaic Creationism vis-a-vis the Assumptions of Evolutionary Creationism

That’s not what prima facie means. You’re interpreting the words from a translation. Moreover, IIRC your goal is to extrapolate through a six-day creation based on these three passages, to a young earth, to a denial of evolution, correct?

3 Likes

But you’ve already done so for many things.

2 Likes

Can you explain further what you mean about my “inadvertently projecting modern concerns about ‘physical history’ onto the ancient text of Genesis”? It’s not apparent to me from the post, even though I can at least partially appreciate what you think consideration of the dimension of time does to a perception of the problem at hand. If I am motivated by a “modern concern about ‘physical history’,” it’s not apparent to me. What is “physical history” vis-a-vis “what happened”? Was the original audience of Genesis unconcerned about “what happened”? I’m not being obstinate to your suggestion (at least, not yet); I’m just trying to understand it.

Hi Mike,
One example of what I mean (but there are more such examples) is that you are using the description of 7 days in Genesis 1 to “generate” a supposed physical history of 7 times 24 hours, while the receiving audience could have simply understood the working week as a framework for communication about God’s creative activity. If they did see this connection, it seems probable that they did not attach “physical” significance to the duration/order of the days.

You still seem to weighing very heavily on the connection with those quotations from Exodus, and I do not understand why. As I explained before, those “prooftexts” fit very well with the idea of grounding God’s creative activity in an everyday reality to support the Jews in worship of God. At the very least, this means there are alternate explanations that do not support the claim on which your “Mosaic Creationism” seems to rely completely. Your claim is that the connection between Genesis 1 and Exodus must mean that the events in Genesis 1 are literal-historical. I think this is one of the weakest links in your “theory”. If that one were false, your framework falls apart.

They were concerned with “what happened” (Creation), “by who” (God), and “for who” (mankind), “how” with respect to purpose (good, very good) but not with the mechanistic “how” and the precise “when”. For example, I think there are textual reasons to suggest that the order of the days is not meant as a chronological description. You have probably read about this before, but there is a clear pattern in the days that develops the motive introduced in Genesis 1:2 “The earth was formless and empty.” Every time, God fixes the “formlessness” (Hebrew: tohu) by creating order (days 1, 3, 5) and then fixes the “emptiness” (Hebrew: bohu) by filling the created order with creatures (days 2, 4, 6):

Day 1 => Day 4:
Separate light and darkness / day and night. => Fill with sun (during the day), moon, stars (during the night).

Day 2 => Day 5:
Separate waters above and below with the skies in between => Fill with fish (in the waters below) and birds (in the skies).

Day 3 => Day 6:
Separate water from land (with plants) => Fill with animals and humans (both on the land)

Day 7:
Sabbath

After somebody had pointed out this structure in Genesis 1 to me, the text has come to make sense to me on a much deeper level than before. For me it is of the level of “cannot unsee”, and I think this structure in the text itself already indicates that the focus is not on chronology of physical events. It is likely that the audience would perceive the same structure: it was much more readily apparent to them because they were native to the ancient Hebrew language and mindset. If they indeed did readily see this structure, the Hebrew audience would also have understood that the focus of this particular text (including its connection to Exodus) is not on the “physical” chronology of things, but on theological matters.

I think we’ve been through much of this already, and I don’t want to make this exchange tiresome for you, so don’t feel obliged to respond.

Peace and blessings in your pursuit of truth,
Casper

3 Likes

Casper, I appreciate the time you took to try to explain what I asked you about. And I do indeed appreciate the symmetry and conceptual artistry in Genesis that you describe. I also agree that we’re probably now digging up old terrain and should probably lay down our hoes.

As for the chronology of creation, I honestly don’t know how to avoid thinking about it when it is practically the only thing the three texts (Ex 20:8-11; Ex 31:21-17; Gen 1-2) have in common. And when you and others tell me that the original audience didn’t care about chronology, you’re essentially asking me to ignore something that’s in the text for something that’s not in the text. One thing I’ll readily concede though: there are a lot more people on this board who think like you than who think like me.

As I said before, their commonalities are explained by the connection between a “human working week” and God’s establishment of Creation. Specifically, both have a beginning, a “work plan”, and reach completion in the end (Sabbath). I don’t know how often this should be repeated to bring the point across: There is an obvious purpose for making this connection, because (1) it illustrates God’s creative work and (2) it establishes a practice of worship in the daily lives of the Jews. I honestly don’t think you can justify a strict literal-historical interpretation of Genesis 1 based on a connection that has a completely different purpose: establishing the holiness of the Sabbath. I don’t think I can repeat this point often enough because you keep returning to this claim in every exchange.

That’s somewhat ironic because I have been trying to explain from the text (and its context) why your conclusion is not warranted by the text. An example I gave from the text (and which you could appreciate) is the remarkable ordering of the days, creating three realms (days 1-3) which are subsequently filled (days 4-6) to be completed in the Sabbath (day 7). It is the unfathomable activity of our Creator fashioned according to an ordinary working week. For me, the kind of interpretation you are imposing on this passage would require a separate clause stating something along the lines of: “In the following passage it may seem like the author has intentionally fashioned the account to mirror a human working week, but actually the author did no such thing so you have to interpret the days in a literal-historical sense.”
If that would be stated in Genesis chapter ‘zero’, I would be able to agree with you.

Anyhow, it appears we’ve come full circle again! :wink:

1 Like

I think the reason we keep repeating ourselves is that you and others don’t think I get “the connection between a ‘human working week’ and God’s establishment of Creation.” Meanwhile, I do get the connection but don’t think that you and others get the reason given in the text for the connection.

(Just completing my part of the circle.)

Okay, to continue the circle one more time ( :joy: ) : Meanwhile, I think the actual reason for the connection given in the text differs significantly from your interpretation of it.

I’ll let yours be the last word…at least this time around.

1 Like

Thanks, lol! When I come up with some new thoughts that may be helpful I’ll pop in again :slight_smile:

@Mike_Gantt

I know this thread has kind of blown up, but I did answer your questions here if you are still interested.

1 Like

@Mike_Gantt,

You complained to @Casper_Hesp that he was “…essentially asking [you] to ignore something that’s in the text for something that’s not in the text.”

Indeed, this is the crux of virtually the entire discussion. The Genesis Creation details (what’s in the text) invalidates its own credibility on many levels and in many places … which warrants a conscientious reader to replace error with scientifically supported correct descriptions (what is not in the texts!).

Otherwise, a great number of the new generation of Christians will be compelled to question even the spiritual truths of the Bible because of your claim that everything is inextricably linked together!

Let me offer my soul up to you in a one time only demonstration!

You say that you cannot reject the appearance of error (The figurative use of days) because to do so would lead you to greater error (we need the literal meaning ‘days’ to justify the Sabbath, and that God created the Sabbath to show he “completed” creation).

And yet the point of the objections you have been hearing here is that the linkage doesn’t save the 6 days of creation if the entire scriptural chain is not defensible for other reasons.

For example, this linkage also incorporates capital punishment for not honoring the Sabbath - an eternal covenant!

Not only do YECs, for the most part, reject Saturday as the Sabbath, even if Sunday can be justified as the new Sabbath, nobody is put to death for working on that day.

The rationalization usually proffered is that the O.T. wording of the Sabbath being an eternal covenant was incorrectly worded. It really wasn’t intended to be eternal… it just needed to run until Jesus, which was a good deal short of eternity!

This is pretty much the same point we have been making all along!: the O.T. wording is not inerrant.

So, @Mike_Gantt, if you can convince me that the O.T. text - asserting the eternal covenant of the Sabbath - is being mis-translated, I will fly to your church on any Sunday of your choosing and accept the faith and baptism of your congregation for all time!

In other words, you are trying to use the alleged integrity of scriptural corpus on the Sabbath as the reason why we must accept 6 literal days of creation! But the only way to preserve the corpus is to explain why God allowed the Sabbath to change … and why the death penalty was allowed to lapse for any reason.

2 Likes

I feel a sense of fascination when I revisit this thread. So much emphasis has been placed on scripture, that the only conclusion that may be drawn is we believe what scripture says - which is ok. This has become the bedrock of an argument, so we can say:

  1. scripture talks of six days of creation - ok
  2. scripture gives us the ten commandments’, and one of these is to keep the Sabbath - ok
  3. scripture now gives an age for the earth -not so.

If the basis is what is found in the scripture, than there is no scriptural basis for any age of the earth - and this is the very argument you claim to make. Yet the Sabbath is one of the ten most important statements in the bible.

go figure :sweat:

2 Likes

I understand the reasoning adopted, but my point is that this is added to biblical teaching, and is not literally what we find in scripture. It takes little imagination for the writer to state that we should believe that we now can know the age of the earth, by adding given periods expressed as years. Since so much praise and comment is found in the bible on various aspects of the creation, it makes good sense to me that the age of the earth would be placed centre to this, especially as it would have given Moses a bedrock certainty when he and Israel prepared the calendar - this was used in deciding when to keep the Sabbath and holy days, which is central to how Israel worshipped (no small matter).

The absence of a clear date, and unambiguous data on an age for the earth, is significant to my way of thinking. It certainly removes this from important teaching in the bible.

2 Likes

For the record, I believe that is not an appropriate way of reading the Bible, @gbrooks9 . We want to save the texts from our scientific thinking, not “replace” them with our own modern ideas, God forbid. I think what you are suggesting here sounds wildly heretical for anyone with reverence for the Scriptures, like @Mike_Gantt, me, and the majority of those who support BioLogos.

4 Likes

Ok, I can work with this.

As I understand it then, you and I agree that Ex 20:8-11; Ex 31:17; Gen 1-2 are all the word of God.

Ok, so I see them all saying that God created the universe in six days and rested on the seventh. Surely, you agree with me that that’s what the passages say, but differ with me about what those words mean. Please tell me (or remind me if I’ve forgotten) how you interpret those words.

That is my main curiosity about your position at the present time, but let me go ahead and address the examples you gave in case it helps you in formulating your answer.

Agreed.

I want to respond to this, but also want to make sure we stick as closely to the Scripture as possible. Could you give me the verse you are thinking of when you say, “The earth does not move”?

I don’t know how to interpret this sentence. Can you paraphrase it or elaborate?

In addition to what @Casper_Hesp said to you, let me comment on a few other points.

You and I, and others on this board, are in complete agreement that the individuals most important with regard to this discussion are not the participants in it. That is, it is the well-being - spiritual and otherwise - of the rising generation that is most important. We participants may not agree - at least not yet - on what is important in this discussion, but we do agree on who is most important in it.

George, I do not have a congregation, so there’s nothing for you or anyone else to join. Nor do I baptize people. That said, why are you making an offer like this? Have you serious thought this through and girded yourself for all it would require if you were to become convinced? If so, why? Why do you think this would be the kind of response the Lord would have you give to the truth? Is the Lord interested in us hiving ourselves off from others…or does He not want us to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with Him?

I find you hard to read. Much of the time, your posts appear to be the work of someone who is very intelligent and very educated, but who participates in this discussion board as a parlor game. Other times, I can take you more seriously.

I have tried to answer you appealing to your serious side, but your frivolous side has colored your responses, preventing a productive exchange between us. This explains why I only respond to your comments selectively.

If I shared your assumption (“The absence of a clear date, and unambiguous data on an age of the earth, is significant”), I would share your conclusion (that the age of the earth cannot be an “important teaching”).

Is fair to say that your assumption is as follows?

If something is important - that is, if the Lord wants us to be concerned about an issue - then He will have made it explicit in the Scriptures.

If you’re uncomfortable with the wording, please re-phrase.

I am concerned with what we are taught by scripture. Your reference in Gen and Exodus deal with the six days of creation and the Sabbath. On these matters, we have a clear understanding from scripture.

I cannot understand why you would deal with this on the basis of what the Lord wants us to be concerned with - He wants us to obey His commandments and to live according to the Gospel. Issues such as dates of the earth, and similar matters, seem to arise from our own arguments.

I see the commandment to keep the Sabbath as central - from this, like you, I ponder on how we can obey that command. My reasoning is along these lines - if we are to keep a specific period of time that God sanctified as His Sabbath, than the bible would have provided clear data that would enable us to do that. If not, than the Sabbath is the day after our six days of work, and we would create a calendar that was faithful in those terms.

The exact period of time that corresponds to the Sabbath in Genesis (to follow your reasoning) MUST be calculated by having an exact chronology commencing with day 1 of creation, followed by 2, 3, etc., until we have the exact period that is the Sabbath. Once we have that, we would create a calendar to ensure these periods were known to Israel and nowadays, to Jew and Christian. In this way we would keep the exact period for the Sabbath, and know the years that have passed since Adam. No ambiguity, no interpretation, would be needed.

I give these details because keeping the Sabbath is one of the ten commandments. I cannot think of anything more important then the 10 commandments - Christ came to fulfil the Law and the prophets. If a chronology commencing with Adam were required than I am certain the bible would provide this and we would not be having these lengthy discussions on an age for the earth.

From my school days, I seem to remember that the Jewish calendar revolves about the sun and moon, and the Sabbath and other Sabbaths (holy days) were calculated in this manner. Correct me if I am mistaken, but this calendar varies considerably, and I cannot recall a biblical passage that enabled Moses to make an exact beginning (from the first day of creation), or the first Sabbath, or any other point of reference.

As a result there have been a number of attempts (if I recall this correctly) at devising calendars, and none can clearly start from day 1 of creation. Thus I conclude we do not have a clear biblical method, or some dating, or command, that enables us to determine the age of the earth.

As a result, some may turn to science (and associated controversies), others to history (and errors as we go back further) and others to inferences from biblical sources. All indicate some personal preference - none are based on a clear biblical teaching.

I did get the reason, all the way back in post #41

… And the reason you rejected this is because it is not explicitly stated, while the actual words “six days” appear in your proof texts. But, again, it is clear that the primary function of the verses in question is to establish the principle that Israel is to imitate (reflect, “image”) God, which is an ethical concern (hence, the placement in the Decalogue). Moses had bigger fish to fry than how many days it took God to create. Fixating on the “six days” is straining out a gnat to swallow a camel.

1 Like