I think you are trying to force modern scientific understanding as much as possible into the text, so that Genesis 1 & 2 corresponds as much as possible with current modern understanding so that there is no ‘conflict’ between faith and science.
My own view is that Genesis 1 & 2 were written largely as a polemic against other Near Eastern creation stories, given the similarities and significant differences. It is therefore primarily theological in nature. In another post you discounted Genesis 1 as hving poetic elements, but scholars have shown that the author has used poetic techniques such as parallelism in the text. English readers dont appreciate how the Hebrew text was written. Although we tend to read it as a straightforward narrative, it simply is not.
Why do you feel the need to allow space? I think that take on the creation narratives approaches them from the wrong direction. We have theological statements in Genesis void of any modern science whatsoever. The attempt to harmonize Genesis with modern science gets the genre of the creation narratives wrong and does not read them “literally” or accurately. I read them “literally” as someone in the ANE would immersed in a sea of polytheism with its own competitive and comparative creation mythologies.
I do read them literally as a vision shown to the author what was done by God during the six days. While I don’t take six days as literal days, I do take Gen 1 as a documentary snapshot of God’s creation on earth.
Different direction is different from wrong direction. So many others takes other directions. Perhaps you have read the whole posts, then you can have a clearer picture of what I was talking about.
I am not a hebrew scholar so I might be wrong in this. but the fact that there is some poetic elements such as parallelism in the text does not mean that it is poetic. I read it as a documentary history shown by God thru vision to the author.
But that isnt the purpose of Genesis. Why would it be a good idea to try to force modern scientific findings into the text, 3000 years after it was written?
Im not sure what you mean by ‘documentary history’ but if it was similar to Einstein trying to explain relativity to a 5 year old, then I could accept that. But I still maintain that Genesis 1 & 2 were likely primarily written as polemics against some of the ideas expressed in other NE creation myths. I think that is what the author was inspired to do.
I never tried to force modern scientific finding into the ancient text of Gen 1.
This is what I try to do.
Understanding Gen 1 as the ancient people did - as a documentary of what had happened in the beginning of God’s work on planet earth thru the vision given to the author. (no modern science whatsoever) .
how our modern scientific finding (the condition of early earth) can harmonise with that ancient understanding of Gen 1.
you are of course entitled to the assumption you hold. It might be a valid assumption. However, you do need a strong proof to build that assumption. Did you get that assumption from the reading of Gen 1& 2?
You only have to compare it to other myth stories of creation to see the similarities and differences. Particularly in relation to God and humans, and the relationship between the two. I would also point out that your view is an assumption, that the author received a ‘vision’ of what God did - there’s nothing in the text to even imply that.
Why do you call Genesis a vision? Is that something you just came up with? Nobody else calls it a vision. When somebody in the Bible has a vision, he is very clear about it, usually saying “I saw…”
The content of the Gen 1 was before there were any human being, so how the author came with the Gen 1:
It was thru vision of some sort. It was shown to the author by God Himself. The content of the text seemed to put the author as the third party (as a watcher if you will).
These six days long vision were shown to the author to reveal what God had done to the earth in forming and filling the earth.
or it was just a man made story which was a myth story written as polemics against other myth stories. it was neither inspired nor necessarily true since that was not the purpose.
I dont pretend to understand ‘inspiration’ but the NT is viewed as inspired, as indeed is the OT, but few if any believe it was all given in a vision. I think, if anything, God inspired the author to write a polemic against other creation myths which the author was aware of. But its primary purpose is theological, showing God alone as Creator and His relationship with humans (no other creation stories, for example, dare to say that mankind is made in the very image of God).
you know Peter, that is interesting because all this time I thought it must be some kind of vision that God gave to the author. When you said ‘God inspired the author’, what do you really mean? Did God put thoughts so that he could set the sequence correctly by days? Perhaps we can dwell more on the kind of inspiration on Gen 1 to clear up the issue for us. After all, this is where our assumptions stand.
“Documentary” because I treat Gen 1 as what was actually seen happened by the author at the vision given to him. It was actually step by step progressive work of God day after day (not literal day). When someone wrote about the past events, it was always historical and had a documentary genre in that.
Most likely compiled and amended, redacted, and edited by a group of priests and scribes over a long period of time, as I understand it. Perhaps with some written sources, but with a lot of oral contributions.
The
Only thing I can think of similar to the process, might be how genealogical studies are put together. I really don’t do much, but in looking at what is done, there are oral stories and family lore combined with some incomplete written records, layered on top on real historical events to give a story based in real history but likely playing very loose with actual events.
While I understand that most scholars might agree with this view, I don’t see why we could not start with assumption that inspiration from God is thru direct vision from God to the author of Gen 1.
That sources, written and oral, must have originated from revelation of God since the information contained is prior of our existence. Or it was just a man made story.