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

Faith & Science Conversation
41

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 …

3 Likes
42

Not intentionally, I don’t think. He is just responding in depth to about a dozen people, so hard to “catch them all”!

43

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.

1 Like
44

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.

3 Likes
45

@Jay313,

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?

46

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?

3 Likes
47

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.

1 Like
48

@Jay313

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.

1 Like
49

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.)

1 Like
50

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.

51

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.

1 Like
52

Good observations, though I still think there is probably a difference worth considering between “creation” and in the full maturation of that process. It seems God does not work by creating something fully mature, but in Genesis looks to the earth and sea to bring forth growth, and while he seems to have made Adam and Eve full grown, though that is really not clear, he “planted” Eden, which seems to involve a maturation process. He also seems to do that in life of Israel as a nation, and in our own personal lives.

In our thinking, if asked how long it takes to “make a baby” there is certainly several ways to answer that question.

53

Jay, you’ve said some helpful things here but the good news is that I think we’ve gotten to the point in this thread where we are, for the most part, past the point of questioning the authoritative nature of the Law of Moses. I only framed the question that way for @Swamidass because I didn’t recall his weighing on that point and wanted to give him that out on Mosaic Creationism (MC) if he wanted to take it.

As you suggest, there is more than one way to get to the point that you think Genesis through Deuteronomy is the word of God. My preferred way is through its connection with Moses as affirmed especially in the NT and most especially by Jesus. Another way would be to suggest another author of some or all of the Torah and then demonstrate that that writer, too, had divine imprimatur. Yet another way, as you pointed out, would be the canonical approach, which largely sets authorship questions aside; then, depending on how much authority one is willing to grant the canon, that, too, could result in the books in question being the word of God just by virtue of being in the canon.

If someone doesn’t think the Bible is the word of God, MC never even gets off the ground. Therefore, I don’t think it would be productive to debate that issue in this thread. If it turned out that the only reason someone were to withhold acceptance of MC is because he wasn’t sure the the Bible was the word of God, then it would be worth discussing…but I don’t see that contingency arising.

You’ve misunderstood me. I love the types and symbols and metaphors of the Bible - especially those dealing with Christ Himself. But for those literary devices to work there must, of course, be underlying realities - sometimes even mundane, physical things…like a rock, or water, or a branch. Therefore, in attempting to exegete any particular passage, one must decide what type of speech is being employed. And we must let the text say what God intends - not insist on a lofty figurative interpretation if God intends a more mundane one. And, of course, some texts allow for both. For truly Jonah had a physical experience which figuratively spoke of what would happen to our Lord.

I don’t get the mutual exclusivity. Because God wants us to imitate Him there can be no other meaning derived from the passage?

Moreover, it cannot be that the scientific age was something God had no way of foreseeing when He gave Moses the instructions about “work six days and rest…just like God.” Therefore, He knew how naive Moses would one day look, and how foolish anyone who believed him would look, once the scientific age blossomed. Why justify the command with a reference to His own behavior? He demonstrates in the Levitical refrain “Be holy for I am holy” that He knows how to tell us to imitate Him without having to embed it in a commandment about work and rest. For that matter, why would humans need extra justification for taking a day off? And of all the Ten Commandments to give a justification for! If the Lord gave us all ten and said, “You only have to keep one of them; choose,” most of us would choose the fourth one for it gives us something nice and trims our pleasures the least. I could go on.

God went out of His way to tell us that He took six days to create the universe. It seems strange to me then to say that He wants us to ignore that. But maybe I’m missing something, which is why I keep asking.

54

Because you can’t have your cake and eat it, too! (Edit: haha!) Do you not notice that the command to imitate God is embedded in the Decalogue? This makes the context and the primary referent ethical. The commandment’s primary tie to Genesis 1 is Gen. 1:26-28, not the literal number of days.

  • That the Lord Jesus is presented as the image of the invisible God,
  • That Jesus and the gospels and all the apostles stress this fact,
  • That we are called throughout the gospels and the NT to imitate Christ, our example, and thereby imitate God,

These are things that are crucial to Christian theology, and this is what Moses is teaching the Israelites. They are to follow the pattern revealed to them on the mountain, not only in building the tabernacle, but in every aspect of life. These are earthly copies of heavenly realities, as the entire book of Hebrews instructs us. God revealed his creation to Moses in the pattern of 7 days to emphasize these spiritual facts, not to satisfy their (or our) curiosity about how long it took God to create. These are sound theological reasons for understanding Ex. 20:8-11 and 31:12-17 as being concerned with establishing a spiritual, ethical principle for the people of God to follow, not as being concerned with satisfying our curiosity about the age of the earth. Couple this with the fact that we know beyond a shadow of doubt (as I believe you also know) that the earth was not created 6,000 years ago, and there is absolutely no reason to continue to maintain that position.

1 Like
55

Funny but you don’t apply that argument to the parts of the Bible that talk about the flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, etc. You don’t think the Church looked foolish when people realized that they had been wrong for all those years? Yes I know those are not conflicts between the Bible and SGH, but they are conflicts between the Bible and science. Conflicts that you can overlook with no problem.

So you consider 10 verses out of the entire Bible to be “going out of His way” even though there are other verses that conflict with these? That seems to be a very small nail to be hanging your hat from.

1 Like
56

Why do you keep saying, “But God wouldn’t have done it that way …”?

And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, ‘Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.’

1 Like
57

From a biblical point of view, I don’t think there is a problem. Generations of people across many cultures have taken the Genesis account very much at face value and believed God created the world in six days, and they have led productive, effective, worthy lives as Christians.

The reason I am uncomfortable with it for myself is that I find the scientific evidence that the material universe and life on our planet emerged over a much longer time frame very compelling and impossible to explain away. I think many aspects (though not all) of young earth theology (if you don’t have to take into account and explain any of the physical evidence) are simpler and more elegant. I understand why people prefer it purely on theological grounds.

Since I can’t accept that a six day material creation actually describes reality, I have to look for another reason God chose to present it that way. So I think of the six day work week as a picture. I think it is an important picture that is supposed to teach us something (other than historical fact). I’m not totally sure what. I keep hoping one day I’ll read something and be like, “THAT’S IT!” But in the meantime, there are plenty of Scriptures I understand loud and clear and can orient the path of my life around just fine, so I don’t sweat it.

1 Like
58

@Mike_Gantt

That deduction can only be made plausible if you already have established that God inspires scripture with “word for word” precision. If the inspiration is much more generic or plausibly “fuzzy” - - then you really can’t turn the Bible into a unified cook book of theological precision.

1 Like
59

And across multiple, differing translations, no less!

1 Like
60

Doesn’t that apply equally to the size of the mustard seed and the firmament?