I checked the New English Translation to see if its footnotes for Ex 20:11 and Ex 31:17 inform the reader that either passage is parenthetical. They do not.
What biblical reasons are there to accept the scientific view of the earth as billions of years old?
But so what? You’re not actually addressing anything I write. Translations typically address the text in its final form, without identifying sources (with rare occasions). Conversely, if you look at standard Bible commentaries you will find they typically identify this as the parenthetical note of a later writer, typically referred to as P (dated to the Exile or after). Here are just a few commentaries which do this.
-
John I. Durham, Exodus (vol. 3; Word Biblical Commentary; Dallas: Word, Incorporated, 1998), 290.
-
Richard Elliott Friedman, “Torah (Pentateuch),” ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 611.
-
Hans Jochen Boecker, “Decalogue,” The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999–2003), 787.
-
W. Johnstone, Exodus (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 98.
-
Donald E. Gowan, From Eden to Babel: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis 1–11 (International Theological Commentary; Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1988), 31.
-
Philip Peter Jenson, Graded Holiness: A Key to the Priestly Conception of the World (vol. 106; Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series; Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 194.
-
Stephen A. Geller, “The Religion of the Bible,” in The Jewish Study Bible (ed. Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler; New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), 2035.
As I have pointed out previously, this conclusion is indicated by the Bible itself, since Exodus and Deuteronomy both give two completely different commentaries on the sabbath. Moses only says it is to commemorate the exodus from Egypt (nothing at all about creation), and no one else between Exodus and the end of the Old Testament associates the sabbath day with creation. Even Ezekiel says that the purpose of the sabbath according to God is “a reminder of our relationship” (Ezekiel 20:12), saying nothing about creation. Rather than giving the meaning of the sabbath in Exodus 20:11, Ezekiel gives the meaning of the sabbath found in Exodus 31:13.
Don’t you think it’s odd that there are two verses which connect the sabbath to creation, no one outside Exodus seems to know about them, and when other people in the Bible describe the meaning or purpose of the sabbath they never say it’s the creation? Have you ever wondered why no one from Genesis 12 to the end of 2 Kings shows any knowledge of Adam, Eve, the serpent, Eden, the flood, the Tower of Babel, or any of the events in Genesis 1-11? Have you ever wondered why all the genealogies from Genesis 12 to the end of 2 Kings only go back as far as Abraham’s family? Have you ever wondered why the first references to the genealogies in Genesis 4-5 are in 1 Chronicles, written after the Babylonian exile? The Bible is just throwing evidence at you here, mountains of it. You need to listen to what it’s saying.
2 Likes
I always take it as good advice to listen to what the Bible is saying, even if I think you are reading it incorrectly.
Thank you for the answers you have given to my questions about your position. I now feel I understand it enough to make a decision about it. Please do not spend any more time trying to explain it to me as I have concluded that I am not a good candidate for your view.
I see numerous problems with your view and I have expressed some of them even as I’ve tried to give you the benefit of every doubt and seek to learn more about it lest I be overlooking something. I’ve finally reached a point where further discussion will not be helpful to either of us.
It is clear to me that you have thought a long time about your view and feel quite strongly that it is the truth, fully in sync with the Bible. I entertain no hope that you will give it up, and now you should entertain no hope that I will adopt it.
I could, of course, go into great detail about the many things I see problematic about your view - just as you could go into great deal about the many things you see problematic about any of my views. Nevertheless, I will resist all efforts to discuss this subject with you any further for I am convinced it would be contentious and unprofitable for both of us. I am being emphatic about this so that you will not lose any more time on my account, and so that I will not lose any more time on your account.
I deem you to be acting in good faith with your view, doing what you believe is right in the sight of the Lord. If you believe the same about me, that’s fine with me. If you don’t, that’s fine with me, too.
To the Lord Jesus Christ be glory and peace, now and forever!
@Jonathan_Burke, excellent list!!!
[quote=“Jonathan_Burke, post:423, topic:36256”]
Have you ever wondered why:
-
no one from Genesis 12 to the end of 2 Kings shows any knowledge of Adam, Eve, the serpent, Eden, the flood, the Tower of Babel, or any of the events in Genesis 1-11?
-
Have you ever wondered why all the genealogies from Genesis 12 to the end of 2 Kings only go back as far as Abraham’s family?
-
Have you ever wondered why the first references to the genealogies in Genesis 4-5 are in 1 Chronicles, written after the Babylonian exile?
3 Likes
Hi Mike, I am glad that we were able to come to such an understanding, especially since large parts of the conversation here seem to be going in circles! I will share what solutions are satisfactory, to my own conscience before God.
I actually accept the entirety of the OT as history, but I believe the ancients had a different approach to history than we have nowadays. I would not use terms like “true myths”, even just because it triggers unwanted connotations. However, allow me to remark that the original word “myth” comes from the Greek word μῦθος (or mythos), which simply means “narrative”. Narratives are what help people to make sense of their existence. God knows that because He made us. In that sense, I have no problems calling the OT a true narrative.
Again, I want to emphasize that I do not employ a ranking of OT history with respect to natural history, or even draw any strong line between them. I want to allow Scripture to speak in its own context, lest I miss the message it holds for me personally.
That being said, for me, a useful indicator of the way the text was received is that of the proximity of the author to the events being described. At the very least, from the whole authorship discussion we can say that the Torah contains writings of Moses and, possibly, of people carrying the same authority as him (since invoking Moses’ name is equivalent to invoking the Torah). Either way, these writings were compiled only after the Jewish people escaped from the Pharaoh. The story of Abraham (Genesis 12 onwards) directly explained how the Jewish people ended up in Egypt. As we go further and further back in time, the accounts get further removed from the actual author (Moses or equivalent).
Now, if we allow room for oral transmission of the preceding stories (of Abraham, Babel, Noah’s Ark, Kain and Abel and even of Adam and Eve), being passed down throughout generations to Moses’ time, that process comes with unavoidable limitations. I think we should therefore allow appropriate room for stylized representations of these stories in a way that does not impinge on their intended message and even serves to amplify it. We could conceive of it as the price God was willing to pay for authentic human authorship (and audience) of Scripture, just as He payed a price for the authentic human nature of Christ. I view this somewhat as a gradient, with increasingly larger degrees of stylized representation the further away we go from the time of the author (the time of Moses).
On the one hand, I’m okay with the idea that the original audience would have received these stories in a more literal-historical sense than I do, if this was the only way to bring the scriptural message across. On the other hand, given that the original audience lived in the same times as Moses, it does not seem far-fetched that they would approach the events preceding Abraham’s time (i.e., Genesis 1-11) somewhat differently than those that were written down almost directly by eyewitnesses. Either way, I do not see this as an obstacle to the authority of Scripture. In the end, I always return to what I said in the beginning: I want to allow Scripture to speak in its own context, lest I miss the message it holds for me personally.
As I have said before, I believe this situation is comparable to the way the biblical authors speak of the End of Times. The future New Creation is necessarily far removed from the human authors, warranting stylized representations in order to convey the message in an understandable way. The audience is aware of this and listens accordingly.
Casper
2 Likes
I’m a bit late to this (it took me a while to catch up), but I thought I’d throw my view into the ring just to give another perspective in case it helps.
The way that I’ve been trying to look at it (or generally any passage) is through the lens of 2 Tim 3:16-17. (Which I imagine everyone here is doing anyway, but it’s good to explicitly mention it anyway).
Does this passage cleanly fit into the list of doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction of righteousness? If so, then the path to application is straightforward (even if it requires some digging and thought).
If it doesn’t, then you have to start asking why, so what, and then what. How did this passage teach those to whom it was written about spiritual things, and then how should it inform me. The obvious next question is how does this inform my gifts and works for God. (I think everyone here is of the same mind up to here on these passages).
The kicker at this point is what to do, or what to think about the topics (history/mythos/narrative) at this point. That’s where the struggle in this thread is. And honestly, I don’t think it matters that much. The important bit is what we draw spiritually from the passage, and how that drives us to good works.
So in short, I guess my point is worry less about the nitty gritty details, and worry more about the applicability.
Mini addendum: The weeds we get into here are enjoyable, and can give us a more nuanced view of the passage, or add additional layers of spiritual understanding; however, I don’t think they change the underlying spiritual truth at the core of the passage. @Mike_Gantt, you seem to be getting tripped up by the weeds (instead of using them for greater depth of understanding). So it might help a bit to step back and look at the broader picture, and then come back (either now, or later) to the weeds.
Edit (added addendum)
Me, too, Casper. Thanks.
I must admit to having more of a problem with “myth” than its connotation, or than can be solved by using a less controversial term in its place. I do not find μῦθος (or mythos) used in the Septuagint; however, I do find it employed five times in the NT - 1 Tim 1:4; 4:7; 2 Tim 4:4; Tit 1:14; 2 Pet 1:16 - and the meaning it carries in all five cases is negative - not neutral. That said, in 1 Tim 4:7 it carries a negative modifier which might, of course, allow an interpreter to say that the term itself can in such an instance still be considered neutral. The same case might be made for 2 Pet 1:16, though less forcefully - and again for Tit 1:14, but less forcefully still. In the remaining two cases - 1 Tim 1:4 and 2 Tim 4:4 - the term is unmodified and clearly understood to be referring to something undesirable. Most notably, in the latter case it is contrasted with truth, (which, of course, would make “true mythos” an oxymoron). Thus I would say that “myth” (μῦθος or mythos) suffers from more than just a poor connotation among 21st-century Western exegetes. I am taking pains to make this point because I’ve seen a number of commenters in this forum suggest that it’s “cultural insensitivity” that lies beneath any discomfort with the acceptance of myth as a useful biblical genre. I could take yet more pains to explain why characterizing any passage of Scripture as mythical is problematic, but surely this is enough - and all the more so because your position does not hang so much on this part of your response but rather on the section that comes next.
This is where you hang your hat, and it’s where a number of others in this forum do as well - though you may express the position in different ways, or even arrive at it coming from different directions. I am not inclined to argue against it - not because I don’t have arguments against it, but simply because I think we have covered this ground already…and I don’t think doing so has moved any of us from our respective positions.
I am inclined, however, to ask about some adjacent ground - specifically, miracles found throughout the Bible from Gen 12 onwards. (I ask it, by the way, for curiosity’s sake and self-educational purposes, not for polemic purposes.) Where do you find yourself coming down on biblical supernatural claims about which there is currently no scientifically-generated history (SGH) to dispute it: such as Balaam’s talking donkey, Gideon’s fleece, Elisha’s floating ax head, Daniel in the lion’s den, or Jonah’s sojourn in the fish? That is, do you tend to take such things as historical? And, if not, in what way do you take them?
You do not have to limit yourself to these examples. I just tried to pick some which were well inside the “comfort zone” of history you described.
Just so you understand the fullness of the irony, @Mike_Gantt is perfectly able to set aside the nitty gritty, or other distractions.
In his case, he can set aside a massive catalog of natural evidence that he admits would be persuasive if it didn’t challenge his deep interpretation of a few sentences in Genesis.
How he longs for release … but cannot find it in Genesis.
1 Like
What is the one feature that all of these have in common?
There is no physical evidence of these miracles which could possible lead to a SGH. People might argue that science says it couldn’t happen, but that is not correct. With no evidence science must remain silent.
What do I consider those to be? A historical record of a miraculous event for which we can trust the record.
Question for you. Which miracles recorded in the Bible have left us clear physical evidence? Think about it.
3 Likes
I have thought about it and this thought explains my wondering why people assume that if God had indeed created the universe in six miraculous days we would surely be able to tell it from the evidence.
By the way, what might it mean if the only times we believe supernatural claims in the Bible is when there is no SGH to contradict them?
And, by the way, what is your answer to the question? I’ll repeat it for you:
[quote=“Mike_Gantt,
post:431, topic:36256”]
I have thought about it and this thought explains my wondering why people assume that if God had indeed created the universe in six miraculous days we would surely be able to tell it from the evidence.
[/quote]
We can tell from the evidence that God clearly left in creation that it took a lot longer than 6 literal days. If you want to stipulate that God created in six literal days but left false evidence in the creation that says otherwise I could agree with that.
[quote=“Mike_Gantt,
post:431, topic:36256”]
And, by the way, what is your answer to the question? I’ll repeat it for you:
[/quote]
And I will repeat my answer.
[quote=“Bill_II,
post:430, topic:36256”]
What do I consider those to be? A historical record of a miraculous event for which we can trust the record.
[/quote]
[quote=“Mike_Gantt,
post:431, topic:36256”]
By the way, what might it mean if the only times we believe supernatural claims in the Bible is when there is no SGH to contradict them?
[/quote]
What supernatural claims do you think have SGH that contradicts them? I can only think of one. If you can’t figure out which one that is let me know.
Not to get off on a tangent, but I believe Jonah died in the fish and was raised from the dead by God.
That’s interesting.
Creation in six days, historicity of Adam and Eve, Noah’s Flood are the most notable ones. Of course, not everyone who accepts SGH will say all three, but most will say the first and the third.
Please cut and paste as it was not clear to me.[quote=“Bill_II, post:432, topic:36256”]
If you want to stipulate that God created in six literal days but left false evidence in the creation that says otherwise I could agree with that.
[/quote]
False dichotomy, as I’ve said before.
We would see all types of life appearing in the earliest fossil bearing sediments, for starters. We would see whales, trilobites, and dinosaurs all together from the very start of the fossil record. We would see flowering plants and mammals in the earliest sediments. However, this is not what we see.
2 Likes
@Bill_II, That is the most reasonable conclusion I’ve ever read for the source of the Jonah story. If you look at some of the text-critical aspects of the story, “the deep” is sometimes figurative language for “death”. And many have interpreted the 3 days in the fish as a veiled reference to 3 days of death…
Would you accept the historicity of Adam & Eve … 6000 years ago … but the human population in general formed by God, by means of evolution, a million years before?
In view of what @T_aquaticus writes about the mixing together of the fossil record, including flowering plants, how can you dismiss what @Bill_II writes with a:
“False dichotomy, as I’ve said before” ???
We have zero evidence that a flood created the fossil record. So, if you reject the idea that God left this kind of evidence as “a test” … you are left with the idea that the Flood story (in conjunction with a young Earth) is contradicted by the evidence… God’s evidence!
But this sounds to me like the chemist who says he knows what the wine in Cana would have looked like under a microscope, or what the metallurgist assumes Elisha’s ax head must have been comprised of, or what the ground would have looked like after Korah’s rebellion. As I understand it, science studies natural processes and makes predictions based on them. Supernatural processes do not lend themselves to the same sort of predictability.
If everything happened by natural processes, I can why you’d say “If X, I should see Y.” But with supernatural processes, I don’t see why you continue to insist you’d retain the ability to predict.
So you are saying that God placed fossils in the ground through supernatural means?
1 Like
If someone could provide me a biblical reason to accept it. Right now, I see no biblical testimony to that effect. On the contrary, the biblical testimony I see would be in conflict with that.
No. I’m saying that I don’t understand why you claim that you’d know how things were supposed to look if God did something supernaturally. I thought science was conducted according to methodological naturalism and that methodological naturalism excludes study of supernatural processes.