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

I think a totally opposite approach is in order. The “genius of Genesis,” if I may coin a phrase, is that it is written in a manner to stand the test of time, no matter the level of mankind’s knowledge and development. When our knowledge was limited in regard to the early history of mankind and the earth, Genesis was interpreted literally, and sometimes quite fancifully, in regard to the natural world, but the theology that the Patristic era produced, as represented in the historic creeds of the Christian faith, is not really changed despite our advances in knowledge.

Whether anyone is successful in satisfying @Mike_Gantt’s desire for a reconciliation of science and Scripture that he finds satisfying, all that this says is that we are living in a transitional time. The Human Genome Project was only concluded in 2003. Only 15 years have passed. Theologians are slow to react. Regardless of when you find your answer – tomorrow or 15 years from now – I promise that Genesis will remain relevant. The word of our God stands forever…

1 Like

@Jay313:

It is easy for a book to remain relevant. It is much harder for a book to be considered inerrant.

Let’s look at a section of Biblical literature that @Mike_Gantt has already dismissed as “in error”: the sacrament!

“Scholars of the New Testament occasionally conjecture about what is termed the ipsissima verba of Christ, the “very words themselves.” It is a term for those sayings that are considered historically authentic beyond question. One saying which in my opinion belongs to such a category are the so-called “words of institution”:
(“this is my body…this is my blood”).”

“They are certainly the words with the earliest attestation of any spoken by Christ. They can be found in three of the four gospels, and even found within one of St. Paul’s earlier letters (1 Corinthians). St. Paul’s citation is given in a very peculiar form: he describes them as a “tradition” which had been given to him.”

"For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

“The words, “received,” and “delivered,” are technical words, used for the transmission and reception of tradition (indeed the word “delivered,” is the word “traditioned”).”

“St. Paul’s statement is not that he had received some Divine revelation of these words (a voice in his head or from heaven), but that they were words of the Lord Himself which had been “handed down” (paradidomai) to him. Thus we have several separate attestations to these words of Christ: first, St. Paul, then Matthew, Mark and Luke. They certainly belong to the oldest layer of oral Tradition.”

“It is not insignificant that the oldest layer of oral Tradition should be the Eucharist itself. The Holy Eucharist is not a later ritual development of the young Church, a pagan import or imping of the mystery cults. There is no record of a Christianity without the Eucharist.”

And yet, @Mike_Gantt cannot bring himself to accept this oldest of phrases as meaning anything more than poetic or figurative discussion. I believe this is the terminal flaw in Mike’s anlaysis… indeed, the bugaboo of all those who seek an absolutely unassailable position of inerrancy.

And this is not the only fundamental awkwardness:

Matthew 28:19
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost…”

This is certainly a perfectly solid formula for Baptism, is it not?

And yet, in Acts 2:38 we read: “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins…”

So… which is it? Was there Baptism in the name of Jesus? Or was there Baptism in the name of the three manifestations of God?

How does one conclude “exact word” inerrancy with texts like these?

NOTE: The word “inerrant” has only one “e”. This has been a public service by the Chief Wikipedia Quoter

1 Like

The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament
By Gary M. Burge, Lynn H. Cohick, Gene L. Green

Chapter Five
Sources for the Story of Jesus

Page 119

THE IPSISSIMA VOX JESU
“When scholars defend “authentic” words of JEsus in the gospels, they allow for the possibility that the gospel writers may have paraphrased Jesus’s words, particularly since he commonly spoke in Aramiac. Hence they distinguish the ipsissima verba Jesu (“the very words of Jesus”) from the ipsissima vox Jesu (“the very voice of Jesus”). An authentic “word” of JEsus may well represent his “voice,” though not his exact words.”

"Paul Feinberg, a conservative evangelical, writes, “Inerrancy does not demand that the sayings of Jesus must contain the ipsissima verba, only the ipsissima vox. When a New Testament writer cites the sayings of Jesus, it need not be the case that Jesus said those exact words.” This careful definition permits variations in parallel gospel accounts of Jesus’ sayings. Thus in Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39 the centurion’s cry at the cross records, “Surely he was the Son of God.” In Luke 23:47 he says, “Surely this was a righteous man.” For a Roman, Luke’s audience - “righteous person” was the meaning of “Son of God.”

Footnotes:
Paul Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy, ed., N. L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), 270, cited in G. Osborne, “Historical Criticism and the Evangelical” JETS 42 (March 1999): 193-210.

Osborn, “Historical Criticism and the Evangelica,” 193-210.

Link to Google Books Source - “The New Testament in Antiquity”

I think that the six days of creation are declarations, since I cannot fathom how anyone, including Moses, would understand a day during the acts of creation, within a setting that excluded the sun and moon. Since God is the creator of time, I cannot see a difficulty with understanding His declaration, to provide a setting for Israel observing the Sabbath - this observation is especially important as it shows to the entire world that Israel and God have entered into a covenant. That trumps all other aspects of the writings of Moses. We may also appreciate the monumental importance of the Sabbath when we reflect that Israel was enslaved in Egypt, and a six day working period and a seventh day of rest for slaves would have been unthinkable. Moses changed every aspect of Israel’s existence - no small feat.

We may argue and disagree on what a declaration by God means, but I cannot see how anyone can argue the Sabbath (and the other Sabbaths) are commanded by God - at the risk of trivialising the issue, there is no way that Moses would have worked out a calendar to ensure he commanded Israel to keep the correct 24hr period that God made holy during the days of creation.

If my view is valid, we cannot turn scripture into a time-measuring exercise and calculate an age for the earth.

1 Like

INERRANCY AND CHURCH HISTORY: IS INERRANCY A MODERN INVENTION?
by Jonathan Moorhead
[See the link at the bottom]

“Following Peyrere, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) questions the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and claimed that most of the Old Testament was post-Exilic (Leviathan [1651]). Baruch de Spinoza (1632–1677) then posits that the Bible is not a divine book, but a part of nature and subject to its laws (Tractatus Theologico-Politicus [1670]).” [See chain of transmission in the following posting!]

"The empirical philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) gives a classic statement regarding the elevation of reason over the Scriptures, “Reason must be our last judge and guide in everything. I do not mean, that we must consult reason, and examine whether a proposition revealed from God can be made out by natural principles; and if it cannot, that then we may reject it; but consult it we must, and by it examine if it be a revelation from God or no; and if reason finds it to be revealed from God, reason then declares for it, as much as for any other truth, and makes it one of her dictates.”[FN 63: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (London: William Baynes and Son, 1824), 640.]

" This would quickly affect Christianity as seen by the Christian apologist Joseph Butler (1692–1752) who wrote, “Let reason be kept to: and if any part of the Scripture account of the redemption of the world by Christ can be shown to be really contrary to it, let the Scripture, in the name of God, be given up.”[FN 64: In The Works of Bishop Butler (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2006), 260.]

"Jean LeClerc (1657–1736) continued the work of Spinoza in rejecting the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch but claimed that a distinction should be made be-tween inspired portions of Scripture with uninspired. To characterize the Modern Period, it is appropriate to cite the words of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804): “Enlightenment is man’s exodus from his self-incurred tutelage . . . use the mind without the guidance of another. ‘Dare to know’ (sapere aude)! "
"Have the courage to use your own understanding; this is the motto of the Enlightenment.”[FN 66: “An Answer to the Question: What is the Enlightenment,” 58–64 in What is Enlightenment?: Eighteenth-Century Answers and Twentieth-Century Questions (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1996), 58.]

“Such is the background for the birth of liberalism. The father modern liberalism is known as Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768–1834). He is perhaps the most influential theologian of the 19th century.”

https://www.tms.edu/m/TMS-Spring2016-Article-05.pdf
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
.
.
.

Note Referencing the "Complex [Conflict] Thesis! On page 85 of pdf, we read this tantalizing reference:

“It is at this time that Isaac La Peyrere (1592–1676) claimed that the apostle Paul revealed to him that there was a pre-Adamic race that existed more than 50,000 years ago.”
[[ ^ This sounds like one of our longer running threads !!! @AntoineSuarez, thought you would enjoy this reference! ]]

[[In his “Prae-Adamitae”, published in Latin in 1655 and in English as “Men Before Adam” in 1656, La Peyrère argued that
Paul’s words in Chapter 5, verses 12-14 of his Epistle to the Romans should be interpreted such that:

“… if Adam sinned in a morally meaningful sense there must have been an Adamic law according to which he sinned. If law began with Adam, there must have been a lawless world before Adam, containing people”. [FN 4: Almond, Philip C. (1999). Adam and Eve in Seventeenth-Century Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-66076-9, p. 53. ]

“Thus, according to La Peyrère there must have been two creations: first the creation of the Gentiles and then that of Adam, who was father of the Jews. The existence of pre-Adamites, La Peyrère argued, explained Cain’s life after Abel’s murder which, in the Genesis account, involved the taking of a wife and the building of a city.”]]
.
.
.
"This had such an impact that Richard Popkin comments, “The whole enterprise of reconciling Scripture and the new science was blown apart by a mad genius, Isaac La Peyrere . . . [who] really set off the warfare between theology and science.”[FN 62: “Skepticism, Theology, and the Scientific Revolution in the Seventeenth Century,” Problems in the Philosophy of Science, ed. I. Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (Amssterdam: North Holland Publishing, 1968), 3:18.]

https://www.tms.edu/m/TMS-Spring2016-Article-05.pdf

Chain of Transmission discussed in Moorhead’s work:
INERRANCY AND CHURCH HISTORY: IS INERRANCY A MODERN INVENTION?
by Jonathan Moorhead

From: Calvinist Lawyer (eventual convert to Catholicism] Isaac La Peyrere (1596 - 1676)

To: Academic/Linguist/Philosopher Thomas Hobbes

To: English Physician John Locke (1632-1704) [and to] Baruch de Spinoza (1632 - 1677)

.
.

To: Anglican Bishop Joseph Butler (1692 - 1752)

To: Swiss Jean Leclerc (1657 - 1736)

Christy,

Thanks for your candor. I appreciate all that you’ve said. You are demonstrating that interactions in a forum like this can be edifying even when the parties cannot find a way to agreement about how to view a particular issue.

I cannot stand in the place you are, but I can respect the stance you take. In your case, I think the first stipulation applies: that is, scientific conclusions trump biblical conclusions. I say this with all respect. I don’t think it means that you prefer the opinions of men to the word of God. Rather, I think it means you think God has made the truth on this particular subject more clear to humanity through science than He has through Scripture. Thus you expect an ultimate reconciliation of the two. Until then, you will trust what you believe He has revealed clearly through science while remaining open to a better apprehension of why the Scriptures speak as they do on this subject (most specifically, the six days). You are trusting God the best way you know how…which is all I am doing as well.

Perhaps a more precise, and therefore more accurate, way of characterizing your position is to say “scientific conclusions trump biblical uncertainties.” That is, on any given subject, if we’re certain of what science is saying and uncertain of what the Bible is saying, then we can trust God by trusting what science is saying. If this is the principle, than even I can sign up for it. For if I, in good conscience, thought that the “six day and rest” thing I’ve focused on (Ex 20:8-11; Ex 31:12-17; Gen 1-2) was uncertain, I would go with science on the subject, too. That’s why I keep directing the conversation to these passages…to see if there’s a better way to understand them. You can’t in good conscience share my conviction that their meaning seems certain, but you were willing to focus here and share your thoughts candidly. That’s been very helpful.

As far as I can tell, I think you and I have made as much progress on this issue as we can. We just each have to stand where we stand. If some productive way of furthering our dialogue comes to my mind, I will certainly post it…and I trust you will do the same. In the meantime, know my appreciation.

2 Likes

Those are excellent sources. I would just reiterate what has already been noted: Concepts like ipsissima vox have long been recognized by scholars. It was standard terminology when I was in seminary and many of us learned Latin as teenagers. (I wonder: Do U.S. high schools even offer Latin nowadays?)

Much of this thread is hard work but I think it’s valuable stuff.

2 Likes

That is a very good synthesis. You’re a good listener. :slight_smile:

I agree that we cannot have our cake and eat it, too - but you haven’t made clear how, if at all, that adage applies to the passages in question.

I agree that there is a logical connection between Ex 20:8-11 and Gen 1:26-28 - but that is an implicit connection. By contrast, the connection between “six days plus a day of rest” in Ex 20:8-11 and Gen 1-2 is an explicit one. Therefore, I not only don’t understand why you struggle to accept more than one connection between two passages, I also don’t understand why it’s the explicit one that you choose to discard.

You go on to wax eloquent for more than a paragraph about the theme of imago dei and imago christi throughout both testaments - and worthy of eloquence is this theme! However, I - again - do not see how this addresses the issues focused upon in this thread. Yes, Christ is supreme - but this is a reason to seek - not avoid - understanding something His word seems to be telling us. As I’ve been saying from the beginning, I welcome a superior understanding of the passages in question to the one I have, but I cannot welcome setting these passages aside as unimportant.

I have no curiosity about the age of the earth per se. I only have a curiosity about things God is trying to tell us. He is the one who brought up “six days.” I simply want to know what He means by it.

Here is where the mystery of your exegetical rationale becomes more apparent to me.

Yes, I know, but I warned you of that from the beginning. I am not concerned to change the minds of people like you, who are secure in their faith and beliefs. My concern is the younger generation, so my message is crafted for them, not you.

Can’t say I didn’t try, though … :slight_smile: Grace and peace, brother.

In light of the OP, I think the polite thing for George to do would be to create his own new thread with posts #62-66.

Yes, I am focused only on conflicts between the Bible and SGH. I see no conflicts between the Bible and science.

The nail is a good bit bigger than that.

  • We are talking about the 10 verses from the two Exodus passages plus the 34 verses from Gen 1:1-2:3, for a total of 44 verses saying in three different passages that in six days the Lord created the universe and that He rested on the seventh.

  • I am unaware of any verses that conflict with these on those two points (creation in six days followed by a day of rest).

  • The two Exodus passages establish a memorial to Gen 1-2 such that ancient Israel would be bearing an every-Saturday all-day implicit witness to the surrounding heathen nations about the truth of creation vis-a-vis their many myths - a testimony that would be even more striking than seeing a darkened Chick-Fil-A in a busy retail district on a Sunday. Moreover, this memorial would be perpetuated in one form or another long after ancient Israel’s 1st-century collapse…by Judaism and all three major branches of Christianity, not to mention the sects and cults that would seek to imitate them. Seemingly, God had so designed it that the world would be hearing about how He’d created the world in six days and rested on the seventh to a degree unrivaled by most of other things He had revealed about Himself to Moses.

No small nail.

@Jay313, I am fine with whatever a moderator thinks should be done. But I’d like to tarry on your quote from @Mike_Gantt:

" I eschew the doctrine of inerrancy, primarily because it leads to a focus on immaterial issues."

I missed this sentence. And it surprises more than just a little. Up until now, Mike’s defense of the O.T. had seemed quite
unlimited.

@Mike_Gantt, could you give an example of how you different from the usual “Doctrine of Inerrancy” crowd? I think it would help me have a more nuanced view of Young Earther’s in general.

For example, Mike, you have already stated in the OP: "For the Torah to be the testimony of Moses, it is not required that he have been the scribe of every word or even of any word. It is required, however, that whatever was written, if not written by him, was written at his direction and with his approval. In that sense, He is the author of the Torah. (The account of Moses’ death in Deut 34 is considered an acceptable exception.) "

But what is an example that you would use to demonstrate your distinction? What specific words of Torah are you willing to consider as not inerrant?

1 Like

I enjoyed reading the 5 Views of Inerrancy book, and one quote I remember from one of authors was something like" I have no problem with affirming inerrancy, as long as I get to define it." It certainly is a slippery concept.

2 Likes

Actually, that’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying is “God did it this way…let’s think about why.”

The six-day plus one creation week is a huge stumbling block in a scientific age - a point on which you and I agree, but with different responses. An effective solution would be to find a NT verse that does to the history of Torah what Mark 7:19 does to the dietary regulations of Torah. Such a verse has eluded me. There are other potential solutions, but until I find one I cannot in good conscience ignore the three textual witnesses staring me in the face. That’s why one of the questions I keep asking is “Why did God do it this way?” Because knowing the answer to that question could be the solution to the dilemma.

I am well aware of what it means to be hit forcefully and unexpectedly by a divine 2X4 at eye level - all to an ultimately good outcome. I would welcome such a knock in this case. I am not resisting it; I just haven’t felt it. (And it’s a feeling that cannot go unnoticed.)

You have offered an impassioned plea for me to give up my understanding of what the three passages seem to be saying about six plus one. But I have not yet heard from you a persuasive rationale for doing so. Your emotion is commendable, but I’m sure you can appreciate that a human conscience needs more than human emotion to satisfy it.

@Mike_Gantt,

And yet millions of Christians have found a combination of verses that do the trick nicely. Perhaps you could re-state why you reject the approach described below:

@Mike_Gantt 's Possible Solution?

  1. Both the OT and NT support the notion that God’s notion of time is completely alien to the Human notion of time.

  2. Genesis describes a unit of time (the unit “day” is explicitly mentioned in (1) above) which to the ancient world could only be defined by the regular passage of the Sun. There was no other way to count the interval. And yet the scribe of Genesis writes about 3 different (so-called) days elapsing without benefit of the Sun in any way.

  3. This is notoriously seen as the flag that this story in Genesis is not to be taken as a literal description of literal events.

So, what keeps you from picking up on the obvious implications of a text from the NT and two or three texts of the O.T.

George, you yourself quoted above the reason I would not be interested in participating in this sub-discussion on inerrancy. It’s not eschewing if I don’t eschew.

But that’s just it, Jay - Genesis is not standing the test of time. If it were, there wouldn’t be a BioLogos. Or a Discovery Institute, or a Reasons to Believe, or an Answers in Genesis. Each of these organizations represents a constituency campaigning for its own version of Genesis. And to the world beyond, what still looked like reliable ancient history even as recently as half a millennium ago, has since been moved to the shelf where Aesop’s Fables are kept. Sure, we can say that you can still find valuable truths in Genesis even sans the historical dimension, but constituencies for Aesop’s Fables can say the same.

If you think Genesis is standing the test of time, it can only be in a Darwinian sense - that is, we’re witnessing the random mutations of Genesis that natural selection will use to the decide the winner. That may be survival of the fittest, but it’s not the word of God standing forever.

I tend more toward the thought that Genesis is doing well to stand the test of time, but we must be careful to look for the purpose God meant for it. Certainly, the early Isrealites failed in seeing it’s message of one creator God, as they easily lapsed back and forth into tribal idolatry (Though I suppose we have to wonder what they were reading back before Moses wrote it…) so perhaps it is a problem with humanity, rather than a problem with the message.
In any case, good food for thought.

1 Like