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”.
I agree. Whoever actually contributed to the composition, recording, and/or editing of the Pentateuch, the end product was vested with the authority of Moses, and that is significant. I think in oral cultures “authorship” is conceived of differently and it is the authority behind the message that matters not necessarily the identity of the person who communicates it or preserves it.
I honestly don’t see how this is so. I don’t think this is at all a universal response. I get that creation is presented in six days and that is given as the rationale for Sabbath rest, but I don’t see how that gets you to “therefore Genesis 1 is an objective historical account.” All throughout the OT and NT there is attention to types and parallels and recapitulations as literary devices. Christ is Adam. Christ is Moses. Christ is Jonah. Christ is David. John the Baptist is Elijah. The disciples are the 12 tribes of Israel. Canaan is Eden. The temple is a mini-cosmos. It seems quite plausible to me that somehow the establishment of the Sabbath is a parallel of creation and the setting up of Eden as sacred space.
I agree that is clear. What I don’t agree is clear is that Moses’ testimony in Genesis 1-2 is an objective historical account instead of a collection of theologically motivated truth claims. When Moses spoke on God’s behalf, was God’s intent to communicate history or to reveal important truths we could never discover on our own about who God is, what humans are called to, and why we should submit to him? Why do you think it was God’s intent to communicate history in Genesis 1-2. That makes it sound like the most essential message of Genesis 1-2 is that humans have their facts straight about the hows and whats of the beginning of the world instead of the most important thing being they know who creates and rules the world.
If I am wrong, yes; but if I am right, God forbid!
If I am wrong, however, help me understand where and why I am wrong relative to the case I have put on the table. If you are my brother and love me, I know you will want to help me. I need you to be more specific about where you think my error lies than you have been. (If you’ve already told me, I apologize for missing it in all the exchanges.) To help you respond specifically to the case I have put forward, here again is the heart of the matter from my point of view:
The pivotal issue for me is not Gen 1-2 per se, but rather the institution of the Sabbath as given in the Ten Commandments, specifically, Ex 20:8-11 - and as reinforced in Ex 31:12-17, and what the institution of the Sabbath reinforces about Gen 1-2. They all say that God created in six days and then rested on the seventh…and the Exodus passages liken God’s creation week to weeks as we know them.
Am I wrong because these three passages are not “of Moses” and therefore do not carry authority as the word of God?
or
Am I wrong because I am misinterpreting the passages - specifically, the institution of the Sabbath as instructed in Ex 20:8-11 and reinforced in Ex 31:12-17?
If the former, on what basis do you conclude that the three passages are not of Moses?
If the latter, what is the correct interpretation of Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:12-17 with respect to God’s six days and rest?
It seems to me that by instituting the Sabbath in this way, God was putting down a marker and, in effect, setting up the conflict we have before us today. Perhaps you can be the one to show me where I am wrong. I think you believe that the three passages are of Moses; if so, that means I need you to put yourself on the line and tell me what you think is the proper interpretation of Ex 20:8-11 and Ex 31:12-7 with respect to God’s six days and rest - not merely that there can be other interpretations.
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.