You are right in that I could have been more accurate in stating that, but God did write the bible. The Holy Spirit led these authors, my friend 
Led the authors to do what? Write a chronological play-by-play using 21st century historiography? Write 28th century science (hope not. not sure I want to wait so long to finally grasp the true meaning Genesis)? Write theology using an ancient cosmological framework? Appeal to modernist sensibilities? Tacitly correct ANE cosmogonies? Tacitly correct a certain misguided 19th Century British naturalist? Which passage enlightens us on any of one these questions and in what way does âThe Holy Spirit led these authorsâ even begin to clarify any of this?
Somehow, in spite of your admission, you have returned to the unexplained equation: The Holy Spirit led these authors = God did write the bible. I have no idea how you manage to come to such unambiguous conclusions without any apparent support or explanation, nor do I know what it would mean for how to interpret Genesis even if your equation was somehow shown to be strictly true. You have made claims that have no apparent backing and Iâm not sure you realize that there is nothing at all obvious about your conclusions.
The Scripture says in II Peter 1:20-21, âYou must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophetâs own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.â
I interpret that as God writing the bible. You, however, donât. This is my proof. You not accepting my proof does in no way negate that I have presented proof for my belief that God wrote the bible, but then again, because of your predisposition towards evolution and Genesis being allegorical and not literal history. You have to believe as you do, my friend
I think it is up to you to clarify why âprophecyâ should mean something other than âprophecyâ here. You have chosen to equate all of the Bible with âprophecyâ, including Genesis 1, yet I have no idea why I should accept such a contention in light of Biblical usage of this term. Once again, you only manage to make your point by producing new definitions while not bothering to offer any justification for these definitions. Iâm not saying you canât, Iâm saying you havenât. I appreciate that you have a doctrine that is extremely important to you, but being convinced and being convincing require two very different approaches.
And how on earth does that clarify how Genesis 1 should be interpreted? How do you end up making that leap?
Iâm not sure why this is so difficult to understand, Wookin? I donât know of any people on this site that claims, âThey see billions of years in Genesisâ ⌠one must understand the argument before preceding to attack it.
The primary argument that I see is based on this question: âAre the days literal OR non-literal?â. If the latter is true, and the days are non-literal, then it means that the Bible makes no claims about the age of the earth. The earth COULD be young, or it COULD be old, from a Bible standpoint. âNon-literalâ does not mean âtherefore billions of yearsâ ⌠it means non-literal. IF the Bible does not make claims about the age of the earth, then looking in the Bible for that answer would be like asking whether or not Jesus had long or short hair. It simply doesnât give us that information.
Iâve already explained my reasoning for why I believe the days are non-literal and most likely figurative. And unless compelling evidence prompts me to re-think my position, then I will do so.
The investigation about the age of the earth started way before evolutionary theory. And indeed there are organizations that hold to an old universe, while not holding onto an evolutionary theory (Hugh Ross, president of Reasons to Believe being a prime example)âŚ
Who is âyouâ in your statement because it is not me. If it is âtheistic evolutionistsâ in general, then I would politely suggest that you are wrong about the way most TEs have come to their interpretation of Genesis.
For, that is not what I did nor what I do. Nor, in my experience, is it what most biblical scholars have done in making interpretive decisions about Genesis 1-11 that differ from those presented by Young Earth Creationists like Ken Ham.
As for me, you can read my account on my blog. POPChristI came to my interpretive decisions about Genesis 1-3 wholly independent of questions about the origin of species. In fact, up until about two years ago, I assumed that Young Earth Creationists had some valid scientific reasons for rejecting evolutionary theory.
Rather, I came to see that in its Ancient Near Eastern context the author of Genesis 1-11 whether one takes that to be Moses or someone in the sixth century BC was not and could not be making modern scientific statements about the world. Nor was the author attempting to give Godâs âeyewitness accountâ as Ken Ham assumes. Instead, utilizing and subverting the mythical genres of the day, the author was making radical and significant claims about the nature of God and his Creation.
Only as I delved into the teachings of Answers in Genesis did I begin to see how empty their claims are and how beligerent they are toward Christian scholars who disagree with them i.e. John Walton, N.T. Wright, Bruce Waltke, Peter Enns, etc. At the same time, I began reading more scholarly and more recent works on evolutionary theory. That is, books that were not apologetic works like those of Dawkins et al. In the past few decades, the evidence for evolution has become overwhelming in my opinion.
Thus, contrary to your assertion that I sought an intepretation of Genesis 1-11 that fit my prior commitment to evolutionary theory, I had already come to intepretive conclusions about Genesis 1-11 before I was convinced of evolutionary theory. I still have questions about speciation, etc. but I will not find answers to this type of question in scripture that would be like going to a math textbook to learn about ethics or a recipe book to learn about chemistry.
Ken Ham misunderstands the genres of scripture and frequently misunderstands non-biblical genres i.e. interpreting Beowulf as historical narrative to prove that dragons are dinosaurs.
Perhaps, someone coming from a science background can speak to accepting evolutionary theory and then coming to read Genesis differently. What I suspect is that having been convinced by the evidence for deep time and evolutionary theory a scientist might be relieved to discover that many biblical scholars (who are also faithful Christians) argue that Genesis 1-11 are not making scientific claims. However, this relief at discovering that there are alternatives to YEC readings of Genesis 1-11 is not the same thing as seeking a way to conform scritpture to your beliefs. Conforming scripture (other texts and scientific data) to fit your beliefs is precisely what Ken Ham does.
4 Likes
Edits: On rereading it, I find that my wording in this post was a little harsh, so Iâve cleaned it up a bit. My apologies for the unhelpful tone of the first draft!
Wookin, you are way out of line. You need to know me much better before speaking so confidently about my predispositions. My take on Genesis is not that it was intended to be allegorical, it is that I am unsure about authorial intent because I live thousands of years later and because I recognize that Iâm conditioned by the genre types and interpretive frameworks of the modern world, a point that you donât seem to take seriously. You seem to hold not to the inerrancy of the text, but to the inerrancy of your ability to interpret the text. The first may be theology, but the second is nothing more than unfounded overconfidence (or choose your synonyms). The inerrancy of your own ability to provide authoritative interpretations of the text isnât even an evangelical doctrine, let alone a traditional Christian doctrine, itâs just something you seem to have made up without justification. You have yet to give a single reason for your self-assured interpretation of genre and meaning.
On the more constructive side, I think we should investigate the text and ask what it means, not insist that it needs to mean something because we think it ought to. There are features in the text that are highly amenable to an allegorical meaning but I have nothing in the text or elsewhere that authoritatively clarifies this, so I leave it open, and I find it obvious that the text is rich in theological meaning either way. It certainly looks like ancient cosmogony with important theological themes, so I am inclined to look on that as the key to understanding it. Unlike you, I do not feel compelled to force an interpretation on the text that is not clearly justified by anything above and beyond your own self-assurance.
My take on evolution is that the standard scientific account is wholly convincing in its own right (I think this is usually the case for anyone who bothers to investigate it with a reasonable amount of neutrality and using reasonably neutral sources of information) and since I havenât acquired the habit of refusing to accept something that is convincing merely because I would rather it wasnât so, that is where I leave it. I also come to the simplistic theological conclusion that God wouldnât make the universe look ancient if it wasnât ancient. It is rather odd to sum all that up as my âpredispositionâ. It sounds a lot more like my âconclusionâ.
You have a lot to respond to in this string, so please⌠go aheadâŚ
Actually there is a very good biblical reason to believe that Jesus had short hair, but I digress. The bible may not give us the exact age, but one can measure a chronological age of the earth in the bible. Just because you donât or refuse to see it doesnât mean the bible does not provide that information. It does. I am an old earth Christian. I just donât believe from looking at scripture that the planet is billions of years old. Thousands of years is old, my friend
So I would presume that no scientific evidence would change your mind, but wonder if you feel your interpretation of scripture is infallible?
Let me put it this way. If the bible spoke nothing of creation, we wouldnât have an issue. I must bow to secular science, since I have no authority to back my claim, but unfortunately I do have an outside authority, and itâs claim conflicts with secular science.
NooooooâŚmy interpretation is not infallible. I am not definitive when it comes to speaking in tongues, baby baptism, pre-trib, post-trib etc⌠but you really donât need any special interpretation when it applies to Genesis 1, â5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.â
Youâve been asked a number of times Wookin and I think it would help to get a clear answer: to you believe in the inerrancy of your interpretation? Is your understanding infallible? Your study of the OT is extensive Iâm sure, but it is presumably uninformed by much of the advanced training undergone by Hebrew/OT scholars that reach very different conclusions from yours. Can you really dismiss that by a wave of your hand?
It isnât enough to tell everyone âit obviously saysâŚâ. This isnât whatâs being asked. Many passages in the Bible obviously say one thing, but you would probably be the first to interpret them as meaning something completely different in order to sustain your concordist view. You make interpretative decisions based on context, the translation you are using, the genre that you think you see, your theological leanings, your view of the universe, and whatever science you happen to know and agree with. Because of this, you donât get to pretend that your understanding is somehow free from all interpretation. And you seem convinced that your interpretation is inspired. Explain.
Hey Wookin.
I tend to think Jesus had short hair as well, but that analogy was off the top of my head. Lol.
Getting back to topic, you still have evaded my questions concerning the Genesis days. Iâve given you multiple queries about the difficulties in believing in a consecutive 144 hour creation without running into internal inconsistencies and self-contradictions.
You continually say, âGenesis obviously saysâŚâ âGenesis 1 needs no special interpretation âŚâ and so forth, yet when it comes to critically analyzing the text, you ignore all my questions (none of which has had to do with billions of year, or sciencific claims, just the Bible).
Iâm still waiting for some answers.
There are Hebrew/OT scholars in my camp as well? Someone has to be right
But we are not talking about many passages. We are talking about Genesis 1. I am not going to dismiss Genesis 1, because there are other difficult passages in the bible. Like I said, Just because there are math equations we cannot solve does not mean we canât know what 1+1 is
I am sorry. I thought I did answer your question. The internal inconsistencies and self-contradictions lie with your model; not mine. Please state these internal inconsistencies dealing with my model, as that is the only way I can answer your question, my friend
Câmon now. We all know that Jesus looks like a somewhat effeminate white dude with long hair, a beard, wearing a white robe with a blue sash. If you missed this in Sunday School, you can just google it. This is one of those things that is just so obvious, we shouldnât even have to discuss it. You donât get to go around changing the traditional ideas about what Jesus looked like to fit with your preconceived revisionist notions.
1 Like
LOL!..Good one
1 Like
Indeed. And that is exactly my question. Why are you absolutely convinced that you are right? The vast majority of Hebrew/OT scholars do not think Genesis 1 was intended as a straight historical account. But letâs say, just for arguments sake, that it was 50/50. Shouldnât you as a non-expert also be divided on the question? Instead, you think the minority of scholars has it right and the majority has it completely wrong and you canât give a single reason why you reach that conclusion. Very shaky Wookin.
How is that anything but an absurd analogy? I am not questioning basic math, Iâm questioning the meaning of an incredibly archaic document written in ancient Hebrew in a context where there is no such thing as modern historiography, modern science or really of anything that we would readily recognize as modern genres or modern thinking. You have no idea how much you massacre an ancient text by reading it as though it had been written in your hometown in English five years ago. Just performing the translation alone involves irrevocably changing the meaning of many of the words and idioms of the Hebrew text for the English reader, losing shades of meaning found only in the Hebrew and adding shades of meaning only found in the English. Wookin, that was really a pretty hopeless analogy and it is clearly contrary to the case at hand.
It also missed the point. My point is not that there are difficult passages, it is that you have been interpreting very simple passages (such as those that support a geocentric view) that clearly mean one thing to mean something completely different based on a wider understanding and a wider interpretative framework, yet you ignore those who do the same for Genesis 1. Why exactly?
Shouldnât you?
Well then, let me put it like this. It is basic hermeneutical principle. You NEVER use some obscure verse in order for it to be in opposition to another. The bible consist of easy verses to understand, difficult verses, and downright impossible verses. Genesis 1 is a plainly stated passage. You donât muddy the waters by saying, we canât really interpret Genesis 1, because there are other verses that are too difficult to interpret, my friend
Thatâs the beauty of the bible. It was translated. Furthermore I do not read all of scripture like that. Do you have to get special interpretation when Jesus said, he will rise again in 3 days? or that Jonah was in the belly of a fish for 3 days?
of evolutionary science.
Please give me an exaple
You mean the blond, blue-eyed âMalibu Jesusâ?
Okay then ⌠I will reiterate my points by copying and pasting things Iâve said previously. Please, only reply with reasoning and/or arguments.
"How is it âblatantly obviousâ when you have three days that donât have a sun, and three that do? How is it plainly understood, when light is created before the Sun, and yet you have evenings and mornings on all six days? What does it mean when God called the light âDayâ, and the darkness âNightâ ⌠if itâs describing âday and nightâ cycles, then whatâs the purpose of the creation of Sun and Moon later on, if time is already being measured for the first three days (Genesis 1:14 ⌠"and let them (the lights) be for signs, for seasons, and for DAYS, and years) âŚ
In this, itâs describing the purposes of the sun and moon ⌠to divide time. But how is it the first three âdaysâ were measured then, if these celestial objects werenât created until the fourth day? If the phrase âevening and morningâ is a sure sign we are talking about ânormal daysâ then how is it we have an evening and morning for the first three days (that had no sun) and for the second of set of three days (which had a sun) ⌠we could argue, for instance, that the first three days were ânon solar daysâ and the last three were âsolar daysâ (though I personally think that would be a bit ad hoc, but nonetheless) ⌠and even then we would be faced with the problem that ALL six days are described in the same way, with no hint that some are ânon-solarâ and others are âsolarâ âŚ
My argument is thus: an OVERLY literal approach to the days of Genesis 1, being a consecutive 144 hours of creation, will INEVITABLY cause internal contradictions in the text. Holding on to these self-contradictions, will actually distort the meaning of the word âdayâ, which doesnât mean âa twenty-four periodâ but rather more precisely âthe time it takes for the sun to go around the earthâ ⌠since, according to the text, the sun was made on Day 4, we are left with internal inconsistencies. The solution would then be, to re-shape the way we think about the text. Maybe the order of creation isnât strictly chronological (Lee Ironâs and Meredith Klineâs view, also known as âFramework Hypothesisâ which argues for a topical understanding of creation) ⌠maybe the days are talking about the visions the prophet had, about the creation event (which seems to be Burkeâs view, unless I misunderstood him) âŚ"