Thanks. I hadn’t noticed the tension between verses two and three. I’ll give that some thought. Nevertheless, such tension isn’t necessarily bad. Is the normally particle-like electron a wave or a particle? Is normally wave-like light wave or particle? In wave/particle duality there’s a tension, and we recognise that both aspects are true.
Your comments about verse three with congregations ring true in my experience. We used at a Hymn Society conference, and a couple of lay people (out of about 100) asked me about it. They have a point. One of the constant tensions within the hymn/song world is how far we rein back to be within comfort zones (but this can veer towards lowest common denominator) and how far we push folk beyond the comfort zone (and what better place than worship for acknowledging that there are things beyond our grasp). This is towards the latter end of that spectrum. There is, I suspect, no simple answer.
So this will never make the top hundred hallelujah hot-hits! I’m not giving up the day-job to live on its royalties! Nevertheless, a part of its role is to give encouragement to a “thinking congregation” that modern science is God-given.
I asked for what I wanted. You never even looked up “circular poetry” to find out what it was. You never considered that it did what I said it would do. You still don’t understand why it needs to be done. Instead you simply said I was wrong. Nope. That does not help.
Those with strong backgrounds in comparative linguistics as well as backgrounds in Hebrew from the best schools definitely would agree. However, you’d be amazed how many professors at many of the smaller fundamentalist seminaries and denominational pastor-training schools earned all three of their degrees from very homogenous institutions—and sometimes even multiple degrees from the same campus. (Some even stay around and teach on the same campus. When I used to guest lecture at a lot of schools, I was amazed how often entire faculties were totally unaware of important scholarship, especially in Biblical linguistics.)
Frankly, I’ve been retired for so long—and working in other areas of scholarship ever since—that I’ve not kept up on the best resources for students and laypersons.
However, I would recommend some general reading on related issues which I think you would enjoy. Moises Silva and David Allen Black have written some outstanding introductions to Biblical linguistics. And D. A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies has become a classic. Even though you’ll probably find a lot more Greek New Testament examples in those books, the principals and fundamentals of careful exegesis are sure to capture your interest.
There are also some excellent websites containing handy compilations of Hebrew idioms, some of which you’ll already recognize and others you may have never stopped to think about.
I’d recommend that you read Genesis 1 through 9 (yes, up through chapter 9) in several modern English translations while paying special attention to the translation footnotes. For example you will find that even though the generally ambiguous word “earth” usually appears in the main text, each instance will be tagged in the footnote as “land” or “country/nation” or something like “The heavens and the earth is a Hebrew idiom referring to what the ancient Hebrews regarded as their entire universe.”
I also recommend spending some time reading the NIV Commentary on Genesis 1 through 9. In fact, I recommend an investment in the entire series, but if that isn’t possible, you can also buy the volumes individually. Volume 1 (containing Genesis) as well as the Matthew/Mark/Luke volume deserves to be in your library—unless you have access to a library with the entire series in its reference room.
The NET Bible with translation notes at the Bible.org website is worth checking out. You may also like the write-your-own-notes feature.
My current work is largely Greek NT and I can no longer claim to keep up with the latest Pentateuch scholarship. But other readers can probably recommend some good websites.
Maybe I should have said you prefer a fairy tail to reality if that reality makes you uncomfortable. Lots of people choose that way. For example, the Star Wars movies have produce a religious following. They know that the movie is not true history, yet they prefer the fantasy to reality.
Yes, we all must choose what we believe. Your example is a bit over the top. However, I am saying we have an ancient document that can be read in harmony with science and you reject that interpretation because… why?
The structured part of Genesis 1 is what led me to the realization that the text is circular poetry. You accept the structure because it has been around for hundreds of years. However, very few people know it is there because what is taught is a narrative list. A narrative does not need that kind of structure. In fact, it detracts from the narrative. Therefore, it is there for a reason other than the narrative.
Or my version will open new ways to view the entire Bible, and Christianity will grow closer to God because the fairy tail aspect is gone. Fear of failure should not be a constraint to the pursuit of knowledge. Yet, it often is a constraint forced upon us by well-meaning people. Jesus said the natural comes before the spiritual (John 3:12). The comprehension of the cosmos for the entirety of Christianity was dictated by Aristotle and his fellows, not the Bible. Christian theologians like Augustine read the Genesis to align with their understanding. Modern science beliefs reject the Aristotle model of the cosmos, and all other ancient models, because they do not fit what we now see and understand. That understanding far surpasses that of even 100 years ago. If the Hebrew text that dictated their model matches our understanding, that would show something exceeding anything they could have known and possibly believed. That is a quest worthy of my time.
Circular poetry is a style of poetry. I never claimed it had ever been used to describe Genesis 1 by scholars. That does not mean that Gen 1 is not circular poetry. It means scholars have not noticed.
You need to return to the original post and read slowly. You need to google “rules for circular poetry,” and then read the two together.
The text details match the rules for circular poetry. Circular poetry does not have to rhyme or have meter, that means it can be read as a narrative at the same time it is circular poetry. Poetry shows pattern. In this case, the progression of creation. Most of today’s scientists view nature as inseparably connected throughout. Reading the text as narrative does not show those connections. Reading the text as poetry does show connections. The “2 column” structure of Gen 1 shows 3 pairs of two stanzas. In each set, the first detail and the last detail are the same. The details in between are a progression that connects the first to the last, which is the first. That makes circles, thus the name circular poetry. Instead of being separate entities, those circles link together to show intertwining connections that produce a greater whole. The entire poem is a combination of circles that proclaim God as the first and the last in that whole. That sounds a lot like Alpha and Omega from John’s Revelation. That makes the Bible a progression in a circular whole.
I agree that flowering plants did not develop until much later than the “beginning.” But why so much offence at my using the scientific word angiosperm? Is it because you don’t want to see that you ARE inserting a modern scientific concept yet insist you are not using the scientific meaning because you don’t use the scientific word?
The writer mentions a few plant groups, which include mostly “flowering plants.” All grasses are angiosperms, not one is something else. Likewise most trees today are angiosperms. The most important ones to humans are fruiting trees and nut trees (unless they are talking about building something). But not all of those are angiosperms. Conifers produce nuts that people eat. Conifers are one of the first trees that existed before animals lived on land. One of the first trees was a fern. Those trees produced seeds. One of those looked like a pecan.
Even if the writer understood that the “beginning” plants were very different from those at his time, he would not have had words to name them. However, he also did not use proper names of the plants he knew. Everything mentioned is in large groups, generalities. Generalities let the lineage from the beginning include everything since then, even the angiosperms that now fill our world. Generalities let plants, unknown to the writer or simply unimportant to the writer, exist together with those he generalized.
The writer would not have thought in scientific ways. He is talking about ALL plants, not just flowering plants, every lineage that ever existed. He merely names a few groups big and small like he mentions big and small sea creatures and big and small land animals. His point in doing that is to pick on people who accept idolatry. They worshiped these things as gods or spirits capable of controlling their lives. If the passage is read as poetry, it is obvious the writer is laughing at people who worship their food. He is boldly saying to them that nothing in creation is worthy of worship. Only God the Creator is worthy.
That is because you adhere to a linear narrative interpretation. You insist day 3 (plants) comes before day 5 (sea creatures and birds) and day 6 (land animals)
You agree that the text has a structure where day 5 fills day 2. That means sea creatures are first to arrive, not plants. That also matches science. Birds as second does not match science. However, the poet is filling the extreme spaces presented in day 2, not listing every animal. Every living thing that came between these two groups fits into another circle that is intertwined into this one. They are not separate. Birds are not the second animal creation, but the extreme that fills the space. Everything living thing is created by One God, from the bottom of the ocean to the top of the sky.
Day 3 builds an environment for life outside of ocean. Connecting ocean with land connects the two circles. The plants are the first to arrive on land. The poet does not need to go into scientific details like plants lived in the ocean first, or fungus were the first tall land plants, or that conifers are a lot older then angiosperms. His point is ALL plants on land have a lineage that reaches back to one time. All are created by One God.
Day 6 fills the verdant land of day 3. The wording shows the same pattern as with plants, sea creature, and birds. Whatever process God used was used throughout.
Read as poetry, the writer says every living thing on earth, be it under water, on land, or in the air are connected by their lineage to the beginning of time. Creation is one like its Creator is One. That is another biblical theme that gets lost in theology.
You and others use this statement to “prove” someone else wrong. If the Bible was so clear, then there would be no theologians to argue over plainness.
If telling the story of creation to a child, how many of the writers of those “hundreds of commentaries” would start the story of creation with “God created everything perfect”? How many think of that creation and add that it was corrupted somehow by the first sin, so we do not see God’s creation, we see a distorted creation? Most of them?
Those concepts are based on non-biblical ideals. They are not in the text. The closest biblical you came up with is not even
I think the CAUSE of the repulsion is pretty relevant for distinguishing a valuable article of faith or not. Is the repulsion because an idea “goes against what my parents taught me”? Or is the repulsion due to some issue of justice or love, like “if a man works on the Sabbath, he should be put to death”?
I have not mentioned a great number of things from my book, yet you seem to think that not giving you every detail up front is some kind of great wrong. I answered a question. Now you are combining your lack of knowledge of why I believe Moses had a vision with your lack of knowledge about of circular poetry. Therefore you conclude my entire premise is speculative. And you wonder why I got mad. Hum.
Something strange happened to one of my posts and only a part appeared. This is what it should have said.
If the writers of those “hundreds of commentaries” told the story of creation to a child, how many would not include within that story, “God created everything perfect,” meaning something unlike what we can see? How many would add a lion and lamb being petted by an immortal Adam. How many would add that perfection was corrupted by the first sin, so we do not see God’s initial creation, we see a distorted creation? That would be a standard traditional interpretation. Emphasis may change per denomination but the details stay the same.
I have not read “hundreds of commentaries,” so I will guess that all to almost all the commentators would tell the story that way. However, those beliefs are not dictated anywhere in the Bible. I can only surmise that the commentators believed in the traditional non-biblical creation. If a large percentage did not believe this way, then why does the church at large not know, why is it a secret?
The closest biblical reference you came up with is not even translated “perfect,” but “complete” or “finished.” The translators knew that one word was not talking about a world unlike our world. Yet the belief persists because the theologians believed.
I was hoping for more from you. I agree with your interpretations of the Genesis texts stated. What I am hoping you will do is look closely at my interpretation. Does the poetic pattern shown let the text match today’s standard science?
On a different thread you said you liked exegesis and did not like apologetics. However, you argue apologetics way too often.
So i will give you a big hint on how to defeat my concordistic proposal. It is the question I wanted answered when I posted this thread. It is the question that has been ignored. Is Gen 1 circular poetry? Is there a reason in the Hebrew that keeps it from being circular poetry.
If my proposal about about Gen 1 is wrong, then it will be wrong in the assertion that it is circular poetry, because the poetry structure lets it have harmony with standard science. So I challenge you to find out what circular poetry is. If you are not comfortable with poetry, than find someone who is a poet and ask them. Ask more than one poet. Apparently, that form is not common so find someone that is well versed in different forms. (pun intended)