That makes a lot of sense. Also integrates the story of Adam and that od Noah into the srory of Isreal, which has its merit. Thanks!
1 Like
Joshua referenced Jon on a different blog in one of his responses. Is that what you were thinking of?
Ah, a PM. No wonder I couldnāt find it among the posts. Thanks.
Thanks, Christy. Jon made known to be that it was a āmessageā heād sent me and not a post to the topic. Still being a novice with the software here, I hadnāt noticed that originally. Iāve found it now.
1 Like
No doubt they had a non-random reason in their writing. But that is not the same thing as saying the reason was metaphysically or theologically crucial.
I have noticed that when someone tells a story - whether in ancient times or present, whether in writing or in conversation, whether speaking of fact or fiction - that there is usually an economy in the details. That is, consumers of a story expect that certain details, though not necessarily all, have relevance to the story, else they would not be included. Therefore, when a storyteller emphasizes certain details, as is the case in the biblical creation account regarding sequence and timing, an expectation is raised that there is some meaning to be grasped from them. Since that story is intended to carry metaphysical and theological implications, it does not seem unusual to me that its emphasized details would contribute to those implications.
Very good post, and quality comments, too. That said, my aforementioned lack of scientific acumen limits my comprehension. Even so, the fundament point resonates with me: that accusations of ādeceptive appearancesā are sometimes ill-founded.
I donāt know of any commentator of the Genesis 1 text who claims that āthe authors were random in their assignment of sequence and timing.ā To the contrary. To see some examples of the non-randomness of that view, Iād recommend reading some of the Framework Hypothesis descriptions where chiasm (A-B, B-A) patterns and the 3+3 outlines are explained.
An English poet may choose a word because it rhymes, but he does not choose it merely because it rhymes. Similarly, a Hebrew prophet may choose a word because it fits a literary structure he wants to employ, but he does not choose it merely because it fits his literary structure.
I certainly agree. However, I donāt understand how that reply was prompted by my post.
Meanwhile, Iām curious if you have read any of the Genesis commentaries or Journal of Biblical Literature articles, or perhaps an Intro to the Pentateuch textbook, where the literary structures of Genesis 1 are described. I think you would find them helpful. They usually include informative tables showing interesting parallels, such as those between Yom #1 & #4, #2 & #5, and #3 & #6.
[By the way, even though I often explain on these forums concepts like the various Framework Hypotheses and the Days of Proclamation view of Genesis 1, I should also emphasize that Iām not necessarily endorsing those particular interpretations of the text as the best of all of the possible viewpoints. I mainly want readers to investigate why so many Ancient Near Eastern languages and cultures scholars find such interpretations far superior to traditional, so-called āplain and naturalā readings of the Genesis 1 text.]
I think the literary structures that have been identified in Genesis and other biblical texts by knowledgeable commentators can be very interesting. In this regard, I was thrilled years ago at my first exposure to Robert Alterās work. Nevertheless, my current focus is in reconciling, if possible, the Bible and evolution. My exposure to the Framework Hypothesis has not advanced this cause. Neither has John Walton, who strikes me as promoting the next generation of this type of analysis, helped me in this regard. If I had unlimited time, I would study more of these literary approaches because I find it very interesting, and it is often spiritually edifying. However, its exponents, when they do consider creation issues, seem more interested in removing the biblical text from the debate rather using it to resolve the debate - Walton being the most obvious example.
Therefore, I donāt mean to sound ungrateful for your suggestions along this line. In fact,I hope Iāve conveyed that I share your appreciation of it. I just donāt see how it advances the topic Iām pursuing here.
Just curious. Would you say you are inclined to reject the validity or truth of the evolutionary model unless something in Genesis can be construed to teach the same things (i.e. creation is continuous, species have common ancestry)? Is there any scenario where you examine the science independently to see why so many scientists (and others) see it as uncontroversial and true and then go back to Genesis? It seems like you are opposed to that approach on principle. But I donāt see how the approach of looking for truth claims reminiscent of what the evolutionary model claims in Scripture somehow has more integrity than āremoving the biblical text from the debate.ā
Why is a non-science guy like me trying to see if the Bible and evolution can be reconciled? If I donāt āspeak science,ā why do I even try to engage in this issue, much less think I can come to a place of resolution about it? Fair questions.
Iām not trying to reconcile the Bible with the science of evolution; Iām trying to reconcile it with the history that evolution implies. I think that to expect the Bible to be reconciled to science is a foolish expectation. Concordism is indeed a pit to avoid. Herb Ross notwithstanding, I donāt expect texts written in a pre-scientific age to speak scientifically.
If evolution made no claims about how everything we see came to be, if it made no claims about whatās to come, then I would have no need to compare what it says with what the Bible says about these matters. If evolution didnāt make historical claims (truth claims, or whatever other relevant term you want to use) that ostensibly conflict with the Bibleās claims, then I would never have set foot on this turf.
Let me also point out that I didnāt go out of my way and stick my nose into scientific journals to pick a fight. I was minding my own non-science business while modern culture kept pounding away in the name of evolution against things I had learned from the Bible and thought were settled.
When Jesus was asked about divorce and confronted with Mosesā instructions on the subject, he appealed to a more ancient source. This is exactly the opposite of the way things work today. To win an argument today, one appeals to a more modern source because, after all, āweāre evolving.ā
Iām not blaming evolution for causing this state of affairs; but it certainly is reinforcing it. Nor am I blaming scientists for this state of affairs; it is the man in the street who trusts scientists about the truth of evolution who comes to these absurd conclusions. āLook, if evolution is true then maybe sexual orientation is a thing and maybe transgenderism is a thing - who are we laymen to say?ā
As far as I am concerned, evolution is none of my business as science. However, since evolution makes historical claims and the Bible makes historical claims, I have to pay attention if those claims appear to conflict. Iām trying to find out if that conflict is real or imagined. If real, I will choose the Bibleā¦no matter if the rest of world thinks Iām a loon. However, if the conflict is imagined, then I do not have to choose; I only have to understand. This is my purpose in coming to this forum - to see if there is an understanding on offer that reasonably reconciles the Bible and evolution.
I think you let your enthusiasm get the best of you here, Jon. Isaiah 49:1-6 ā¦
The purpose has to do with mankind, and mankindās place in the world that God has created. Thus, the reason that God began to create, the āgoalā or purpose of all of Godās creative activities from Day 1 to the end of Day 6, was the creation of mankind (both male and female) in the image of God. I donāt know about you, but I look at the āstory of evolutionā and see it arriving at the same endpoint as Genesis 1 ā the appearance of mankind. As of right now, that still remains the climax of the story, both scientifically and Scripturally.
Not so fast! haha. I wasnāt criticizing you. My point, which may not have been stated so well, was that you have been reading anti-evolution polemics for a long time, and you may have accepted a lot of what they claimed that āevolution saysā uncritically. (Notice I said āmay haveā.) As you, yourself, have said, science is not your strong point. I realize that you did not invent the three conflicts that are bothering you. However, trust me when I say that many of the sources who have supplied your past information about evolution (which form the basis of your conflicts) are just as ignorant of the science as you. Luckily, there is a solution ā¦
We have some actual experts, such as Swamidass, around here to explain the science. Iāll let them handle that chore. As far as the Scripture, one conservative commentator from a previous generation (Meredith Kline) noted that ā¦
Of greater significance for the life of man than these merely literary devices is the Sabbathic pattern of the over-all structure of Gen. 1:1-2:3. For the Creatorās way in the day that he made the earth and the heavens must be the way of his image-bearer also. The precise ratio of manās work to his rest is a matter of following the chronological structure of the revelation in which God was pleased to record his creation triumph. The aeons of creation history could have been divided into other than six periods. For temporally the ādaysā are not of equal length (cf., e.g., the seventh ādayā which is everlasting), and logically the infinitely diversified creative works were susceptible of analysis into other than six divisions. But the Creator in his wisdom, adapting the proportions of the ordinance, it would seem, to the constitutional needs of man, chose to reveal his creative acts in terms of six ādaysā of work followed by a seventh ādayā of rest. The divine demand for human imitation inherent in the Sabbathic pattern of that revelation becomes articulate in the fourth word of the decalogue.
Fair doās Jay - having before used Isaiah 49 as one of the main justifications why Gentiles can be included in the covenant, Iāll modify my statement to āIsaiah, for the first time, brings the promise of covenant salvation to āthe whole worldā once the New Testament is inauguratedā. Same new testament/covenant - just prophesied in advance. Doesnāt alter the genealogical case, though.
1 Like
Christy,
Your post came in while I was writing another, which Iāve since published. If you read it, it will answer at least some of what youāve asked here.
As for the rest, I think I understood everything you wrote here except the last sentence. Could you re-phrase it for me as Iām not following it as written.
No, Iām just being a stickler. (Others might apply a less charitable description ā¦ haha.)
Nice to hear you Mike_Gantt,
Itās one kind of reaction for people to āreach for Richard Dawkinsā as an opponent in this conversation & almost everyone in BioLogos community will agree with them. Many atheists have even distanced themselves from Dawkins by now. It is another kind of responsibility, however, for people at BioLogos to confront a person like David S. Wilson & his https://evolution-institute.org/
There is a strange sort of package-linkage between the EES people and DS Wilson (not to be confused with E.O. Wilson), who also writes about religion. That is, the āevolution of religion,ā from an atheist perspective, with the intent of mainstreaming that worldview in (current) late-modern western/globalising societies.
One must be careful with people who contend that human understanding of religious scripture is āevolvingā, while the text itself remains (nearly) the same. Do they really mean to imply always āimprovingā or just āagingā? 
Everything you say about Genesis also applies to the writings of the Syrians and the Babylonians.
But I donāt find that many historians waxing eloquently on how much truth the Sumerians must have intentionally included with their stories.
1 Like
I have long appreciated Meredith Klineās work on covenant, but on creationā¦not so much.
Hereās my translation of what he says in the passage you quote:
God did not necessarily create the universe in six periods of time because it could have been described as occurring over any number of periods, but He chose to have it described in six periods. Neither were the periods of time in which God created uniform in length. The reason God chose to have His creative work described in six uniform periods of time called ādaysā was not because it happened that way, but because He wanted to be able to give a commandment that called for man to work six days and rest on the seventh. Describing creation in this way gave Him a rationale for this commandment that could accompany His articulation of it.
Godās creative example was indeed the rationale for the sabbath commandment in Exodus 20, but Deuteronomy 5 is proof that God did not need to give His creative example in order to have a rationale for Israel to keep the Sabbath. Klineās work on covenant had led me to expect something much more reasonable than this.
This is precisely what I mean by ascribing no meaning to the the timing and sequence of events in Genesis. Kline is saying that any meaning has to do with man keeping a weekly Sabbath - which comes later and has to do with manās behavior, not Godās. Kline is implying that the timing and sequence used to describe the creative work has no meaning with respect to Godās creative work. Like Walton, who would come after him, Kline is saying, in effect, that the Bible is silent on the subject it is ostensibly speaking to.