Were the events of Genesis 1 revealed to humans via a dream?

I find your assertion naive and contradicted by external reality and the the Biblical witness. I don’t think along such cartesian lines anymore. You also don’t dialogue with the material presented with you but only reassert the same thing. Neither the Bible or any other text or source needs to be inerrant to be useful for its intended purpose. Someone making a geography snafu doesn’t undermine the entirety of their work. Its not “PERFECT” or “USELESS.” That thinking is grotesque and not how we operate in life (see the link above). The authors of the Biblical text had no issues putting materials that are ultimately inconsistent with one another side by side. The Biblical authors and Jesus, correct one another at times.

To me the “Biblical books” were largely a living document until they became fully Canonized by the church in its final form. I see this at work in Matthew and Luke rewriting Mark for sure. I’m okay with the Bible being treated as a centering document. I do believe it was mostly inspired by God but not in a top-down sense. I also think Sparks has good thinking on including the Bible in part of the sinful process of humanity.

That is one I need to read at some point.

But did it happen? Did God order the slaughter of women and children and tell the Israelite warriors they could keep all the virgin girls for themselves? A yes or no would suffice. I’ll skim his chapter but killing women and children and keeping the virgin girls for yourselves doesn’t work for me “as a preview of the end times.” I expect justice at the end, not slavery and rape. One thing I see throughout the Bible is that Israel constantly disobeys God. I never saw Israel as the righteous ones and its neighbors the wicked. They all seem wicked with some righteous people sprinkled in. We know during war there are righteous and wicked on both sides–despite whatever wartime propaganda might say to the contrary.

Also, Jesus told us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, and this was during a time of Roman occupation where most people expected God to come and overthrow the Roman empire. The OT doesn’t seem to do a good job in parts of “loving your neighbors.” In fact, I think Jesus had some OT sentiments in mind when he said…you heard it said…but I say… in that context.

3 Likes

I don’t think the problem is people disbelieving the Bible but holding onto Jesus. Instead, what if we allow Jesus to shape our expectations of the Bible?

Jesus did not come close to meeting your demands for how God must speak to us. Jesus centred parables in his teaching – stories that never happened! – and he loved exaggerations, whether about camels that are either swallowed or crawl through knitting needles or people not seeing clearly because they had a board stuck in their eye. Imagine saying, “If even ONE statement of Jesus never happened or was exaggerated, it throws his ENTIRE identity into doubt, considering his claims and what he requires one to accept.” With an if/then statement like that, obviously one ends up in disbelieving doubt.

There’s an alternative. Maybe Jesus really shows us God. Maybe when Jesus talks like that, we hear the word of God. Jesus wasn’t bound to a just-the-facts way of communicating. As I’ve said here before, maybe the God who inspired Genesis is the same.

6 Likes

I remember Longman writing about this, but I’d have to go back and see how he nuanced his answer :grin:

I see turning the other cheek as a not so subtle form of rebellion against unjust powers. Civil disobedience would be like stripping naked before a wicked judge.

1 Like

Its “rebellion” in the sense of “you don’t matter to me.” You want my cloak? Take two. Only God matters. Material possessions are worldly. Our hope is in spiritual treasure…in God. I suppose it does ultimately undermine Roman authority in trivializing it but compared to the authority of God and the importance of the Kingdom everything is trivial is it not.

So why do you see this as a rebellion? I mean if a rival nation occupied your land and forced you to pay taxers and you decided to pay extra…that doesn’t really seem like much of an actual rebellion. Currently, I am just seeing it as Jesus saying only God matter and our standing with him. We need to look to His will in all things and trust in the end it will be done.

Can you confirm that the way Jesus said if you get hit on a particular cheek, that by turning the other cheek, you are saying that you will be hit as an equal?

And being nice to an enemy can confuse them more than righteous indignation

Romans12:20: On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

A good verse for those passive aggressive urges. Makes me wonder, though, if you do it to make them feel bad, are you still doing it out of love? Seriously, motivation seems to matter.

1 Like

It depends whether you hope them to remain as your enemy, or rather rejoice with the angels when they are no longer such

Because all the problems those criticisms addressed were in the people and how they used Christianity and not in God or the Bible. The reason to believe is certainly not these people.

The answer to that question is not likely to be the same for everyone. We need faith and love but this doesn’t mean we all need the same faith and love. My answer to this came on the foundation of Camus’ writing, “The Myth of Sisyphus,” that we can find satisfaction and affirmation in defying evil gods. Thus it was not about surrendering my mind at the door to believe what I was told, but about finding what I could believe in.

I always found this bizarre, not to mention impossible. Some enemies are too wicked.
Not to mention what God states He will do to the enemies of the Church in the end…
I suppose it could stop things getting worse for you. Maybe. But most people are too wicked to care. Or they’ll just throw the food and drink back in your face and attack you.

A great thought here.

Benjamin,

How God inspired Moses to write the Pentateuch is an open-ended question of the inspiration context of the entire Bible. The “tearing apart” of your thoughtful interpretation of Creation Week is not desirable on this forum. Dreams, visions, and often face-to-face (as with the Ten Commandments tablets) are all methods validated in the Bible. I am particularly impressed with how the Lord gives people without biblical backgrounds dreams and visions to reveal himself today.

My response to your post is late in the conversation, but I hope you find the scientific approach I shared on another forum interesting for comparison’s sake. It is my interpretation of creation and how Creation Week happened through God’s Word.

So here is the Q&A “What does science say about the creation account in Genesis?”

Science either validates or denies the Genesis account of creation. My most trusted Quantum Physics resource is a respected Quora contributor, Viktor T. Toth. Toth, an accomplished mathematician, explains that the best scientific explanation for our Universe starts at the second picosecond of time with the Planck epoch’s hot and dense expansion (“Big Bang”) from the Initial Singularity. However, since science can only address our physical Universe, Toth admits that no one, either scientist, priest, or philosopher, can prove what occurred in that first picosecond of time. Indeed, the first picosecond may have been a picosecond or an eternity.

Genesis is a biblical account, and the Bible is not a science book, but there is a caveat worth considering. If the biblical account is valid, the Genesis account amounts to an eyewitness outline of creation inspired by the Creator who was there at the time. So, let me explain how science works in the processes of creation. Theologically there are two types of creation. First, ex nihilo is Latin for “out of nothing.” I qualify the term as “out of nothing physical or material.” Second, de novo is the Latin word for “new beginning.” I see this type of creation as the “Let there be” creation instructions in Genesis.

Ex nihilo creation from nothing physical is the first picosecond timely delivery of the Initial Singularity by the Word of the Creator from His mind and by His will. So, the Bible says in John 1: 1–3, In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He created all things, and nothing was created without Him. At this point, the delivery of the Initial Singularity completely satisfies ex nihilo creation. So then, Viktor T. Toth explains that the Universe has a finite age calculated back to the second picosecond of time, some 13.8 billion years ago.

So, let us focus on the “Genesis account of creation” nine to ten billion years after the universal ex nihilo creation. In his book Improbable Planet, Astrophysicist Hugh Ross explains that the raw materials used to make our Earth and humanity required the space dust remnants of three generations of supernova explosions from neutron stars many times more massive than our Sun. I posit that the Genesis account outlines the “Let there be…” de novo creations in our Milky Way planetary system, Earth, and us. The required supernova astrophysical activity occurred in the first nine to ten billion years following the “Big Bang.” Our Milky Way galaxy and planetary system were brought into the picture some 3.8 billion years ago as a “new beginning” from the previous supernova materials.

De novo creations for “new beginnings” is a sound scientific concept to explain the Genesis account by the spoken Word of the Creator. I posit that the Creator who established the laws and principles of science used them in the processes of scientific creation and also embedded them in natural processes like evolution. Wrap your head around this Quantum Field Theory (QFT) science. All common particles scientifically identified today are listed in the Standard Model of Elemental Particles and summarized in the Periodic Table of the Elements. Acclaimed scientists like Max Planck, James Clerk Maxwell, Hendrik Lorentz, Albert Einstein, and a string of Nobel laureates established the quantum sciences used worldwide today. All particles are the quanta of field interactions between particle fields and the universal electromagnetic field. De novo creation is the Word of the Creator speaking material instructions into the electromagnetic field to initialize the “Let there be…” things in Genesis. His de novo words excite the electromagnetic field (QFT) the same way your words speak into the air to excite sound waves to the ears of those who listen.

So, “What does science say about the creation account in Genesis?” No scientist, theologian, or philosopher can prove the creation of the Initial Singularity. However, the QFT science from the second picosecond of time forward is consistent with the Creator’s “Let there be” creations that followed. Genesis could be paraphrased in the first person of the Creator, saying, “I said, let there be…,” and it was." The Creator was the only eyewitness for *Genesis, * as He explained to Job in Job 38:4 when He laid the foundations of the Earth.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and I hope BioLogos Forum posts reinforce your relationship with the Lord.

Blessings, Bill

1 Like
  • Speak for yourself. First time I heard of Him was before I could read.

I cannot confirm any personal revelations and so I must not include them as evidence. No disrespect.

  • If you don’t want to believe in your own personal revelations or believe in any that anyone else, including me, share with you, is your decision. BUT like I said: don’t try to speak for me when you don’t know me or my history. When you said: “The ONLY way any of us even know of Jesus is because we read the Bible” you were speaking for a lot of people including me, and I decided not to let you do so publicly in this forum. I wasn’t asking you to listen to or believe some “personal revelation” that I alone witnessed, I was telling you straight up and truthfully: The first time I heard of Him was before I could read. Don’t believe me if you don’t want to, but before you dismiss what I say and march off self-satisfied with your ignorance in tact, take a look at this:
    • The 2+ year old in the old Deaf woman’s arms two rows from the front, on the far right, is me. The woman was my stepmother, who raised me till I was almost 12 years old. She’s the one who told me about Jesus … before I learned to read. Now you can march off in any direction you want, but don’t speak for me again.

Oh, that’s totally fine if your Stepmother taught you of Jesus before you read about him. I was making a statement against special revelation. As in seeing Jesus or experiencing Him before one even knows who He is. And the only way to know who He is, is to read the Bible, or in your case, have it read to you. Special revelation would be an untestable claim, your word, and I would not believe it.

  • And I wouldn’t expect or even hope that you would.

Winning five independent lotteries within two days in the order you bought the tickets is pretty good evidence, but of course not proof to anyone who is of a denialist mindset (especially for those who presuppositionally and erroneously only allow for our four spacetime dimensions). That’s why this is good:

The grounds of [true] belief in God is the experience of God: God is not the conclusion of an argument but the subject of an experience report.

Roy Clouser

Nice question…very interesting…but no way to answer…the biblical text does not describe the means by which a concept of creation was conveyed…only that “In the beginning, God…”