If you start out with the answer, how are you going to look at the facts? Let scripture speak.
I agree with that first bit about the introduction statement into genesis and that the narrative is a formless and void watery world. But itâs not about reality. Itâs not a scientific story. You can see this chaotic waters typing in revelation as well.
Like about a flat earth that doesnât move?
Does Genesis 1 say anything about whether the earth is moving or not?
Of course, the ANE had no concept of the planet earth or a globe. When they wrote and spoke of the world, they were talking about the world as they knew it, as there was no other to them. And that world was flat, and you ran into water pretty much every direction you went if you went far enough, and it did not move except for earthquakes and such, which were surely signs from God.
1 Like
So they interpreted Gen 1 by their understanding. Now, donât we get to interpret it according to our understanding? Do you think the author of scripture wrote only to the ancients? Didnât he write for us as well? Didnât he know that one day we would have telescopes and figure out that time slowed down in a heavy gravitational field, etc.?
I think that is something we struggle to understand, Marg. As you almost quoted Walton in his statement that scripture was âwritten for us but not to us.â The âfor usâ and âto usâ are not the same. Along with the telescopes, I believe God also gave us the ability to realize that layers of truth in scripture through what I think Christy describes as conceptional metaphors, and the wisdom to realize the scripture as Godâs revelation of himself through time, and not a science text. If we look at the text as a source of scientific truth, then we are also obligated to look at the scientific inaccuracies, of which there are many, in the same light, and that diminishes scripture. In my opinion, a high view of scripture precludes reading it as sciencific fact.
I think they wrote Genesis 1 using their understanding of cosmology. So we donât get to interpret (or force fit) it to fit our understanding.
That was the only audience they would have known.
First of all, let me say that I very much appreciate that you guys are at least interacting with me on this topic. It is encouraging and helpful.
Itâs true that scripture is written both for us and to us. When Jeremiah says â repent or the Lord will destroy your nation â this is written for us to see how God dealt with his people in the past; not to us to threaten our nation today. Many Christians miss this. But Gen 1 is written both for and to the reader, whoever he might be.
Of course the Bible is not a science text. A science text would describe a star as 43.02 degrees above the horizon, 1.345 magnitude, or whatever, etc. Science requires a detailed description of what we see with our eyes and all the instruments we have to help them. The Bible generally doesnât do this in regard to physical objects. But the bible does testify to real, historic events. It tells us that Christ was raised from the dead; and Paul tells us that âif Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.â So real historic facts are claimed by scripture. Though we may not understand how these facts could be so, we donât need metaphors to explain them away.
When I spoke of the author of Genesis 1, I meant the spiritual author. He knows all of its audiences even before they came to be.
The Bible begins with a revelation (via Moses, OT) and ends with a revelation (via John, NT). If no one reads the latter revelation literally, itâs probably unwise for anyone to read the former revelation literally.
It seems to me that the six days of creation begin with the first âAnd God said âŚâ (v.3), in which case, the âheavens and the earthâ (v.1) already existed.
And few here would do that, as the Gospels were written as historical and accepted by orthodox Christians as being eye witness accounts. But, one big misconception you voice is that metaphors âexplain them awayâ when actually metaphors convey richness of meaning that is otherwise difficult to communicate. Jesus did this continually. Our sermon this week was on the Good Samaritan parable, which was given to answer the question, âWho is my neighbor?â it is rich in symbolism and metaphor, and communicates the answer much better than a simple fact statement.
No, none of the authors, editors, redactors or compilers of any of the scriptures could have known that. Can you propose a mechanism by which these people could have known?
1 Like
The Bible does, in multiple places. And the universe is three-tiered, with heaven on top, earth in the middle, and the underworld below.
Revelation claims to be a vision. John says âat once I was in the SpiritâŚâ and reports things he sees in heaven. One might be reluctant to interpret such visions literally. But Gen 1 is spoken straight out as a report of things that happened. It is overall somewhat poetic, but it is simply reporting events. That demands at least an effort to read it literally.
I see no gap between 1:1 and 1:2 either. And I agree that the creation begins with the first âAnd God saidâŚâ It would be strange for everything to exist already at this point, before creation begins. Why tell us how creation begins, if itâs already over (except for the decorations, etc.). The first verse is the title of the chapter, not the first action.
David, I am referring to the unseen author, God. He does know the future.
Phil, I am not wanting to do away with metaphors altogether in all of scripture. But the way you wove in metaphor as an alternative to science, it did sound like you were looking for a way to avoid taking Gen1 as a claim to actual historical events (if events before time can be called historical.).
Oh, I definitely believe Genesis 1 is not historical in a modern sense.God is not trying to communicate how he made the earth, but that he did make it, among other things. To get a better idea of the layers of meaning in it, read The Manifold Beauty of Genesis One.
of course Gen 1 is not about âhowâ. the fact that God made it. you are definitely on point there. It didnât tell us how the earth came to be, nor the sun, the moon, the light, the animal and all things. however, having said that, we can asked whether there are any significance in the steps shown on Gen 1, not as a scientific treatise, but as a documentary historical snapshot of what had been observed happened. And perhaps what had been observed as the first day thru the sixth day allow some spaces to fit our modern understanding of evolution.
In what sense is God âthe authorâ? Yes, of course âall scripture is inspired by GodâŚâ (2 Tim 3:16). Yes, we accept that fully. But in what sense do you envision him as âthe authorâ? How did âthe pen get set to the paperâ (to use a modernism)? How would his original writers, who are somehow (but how?) wielding that pen, have understood?
2 Likes