No, I believe some of the hominid fossils that aren’t normally classified as Homo sapiens actually are Homo sapiens. I think the hominids that aren’t Homo sapiens are completely unrelated to us, should not be classified in the Homo genus, and should be classified in either the Australopithecine or a related genus.
Ken, these “fairly researched theories” and those who have decided on their truth are also often believers in the impossibility of prophecy or the resurrection of the dead. You can’t prove that something like Genesis 1-11 is pre-history.
Now the research may indicate that Genesis was edited during and after the exile, and I would accept that. I believe that Moses collated pre-existing records into one unit called Genesis. I think that he gave the records of chapters 1-11 a special polemic spin to challenge the myths of the day, which may not have been originally present in the sources he used. However after Moses there were many editors and they made many changes to it, and of course they would, their language would change just as much as any other. This is the problem faced in Nehemiah 8:8.
Is there a reason you don’t feel you want to answer my two questions for you?
Ken, these “fairly researched theories” and those who have decided on their truth are also often believers in the impossibility of prophecy or the resurrection of the dead.
That’s conspiracy theory language Dannii, right up there with “There was no moon landing” conspiracies or “The Government are hiding Aliens at area 51!” You’ve just confirmed it. The cognitive dissonance of the Creationist renders the overwhelming scientific consensus a whole world of dishonest atheists out to get Christians.
Whereas some leading atheists just don’t see evolution that way!
“Darwinism is a challenge to the Christian, but not necessarily a refutation,” he says. “It’s something the Christian must use to come to a more articulated faith”.
“Science asks one sort of question; religion asks another sort of question”, says Ruse. So what does science do with the central claim of Christianity, the one that arises every Easter: the death of Jesus for the sins of the world and his reported return from the grave? Does Ruse’s science preclude him from accepting this claim?
“I’m a non-believer, not because of science, but I guess because I just don’t have faith,” says Ruse in the publicchristianity.org interviews. “I just don’t have that inner conviction. My whole being isn’t flooded with the belief that Jesus died for my sins.”
Ruse finds it personally difficult to reconcile belief in a good God with the suffering and evil he sees in the world, but he acknowledges that Christians genuinely struggle with this issue. “I do find the problem of evil a very strong one, but I can well imagine saying ‘Nevertheless, I know that my Redeemer liveth and perhaps ultimately it is all a mystery’. I don’t think that’s a stupid position to take.”
From sermon statistics I remember: something like 40% of scientists generally are at least theists, and the scientific enterprise has a lot of Christians in it. There are Christians in science from all disciplines, from astrophysicists like Lewis Jones, now in ministry with AFES through to the former head of the IPCC John Houghton (who famously replied here to the “Great Global Warming Swindle”), through to all manner of biologists, palaeontologists and other ‘ists’, all confirming an incredibly old earth, old old rocks with an old old history of fossilised dead things in them.
These aspects of science all back each other up. Just thinking of Milankovitch cycles… there’s a ‘wobble in the earth’ that occurs every 30 thousand years or so, and another one that occurs every 60 thousand years or so, and when they line up every 100 thousand years we get a pretty nasty ‘ice age’. (Actually called a glacial period… ice ages occur over geological time-scales and seem more concerned with continental movements than climate changes… or indeed, a continent being over the south pole might in itself BE a climate forcing, but I’m getting side-tracked). So anyway, these different “wobbles” add up to an ice age every 100 thousand years, and eventually that ice buries peat-bogs and forests and other sources of Co2 and methane, and the Co2 levels drop 800 years later. This is all confirmed in ice-core samples from Antarctica.
And this is just Milancovitch cycles. There are just so many geology, biology, palaeontology, genetic and even cosmology overlaps in dating what happened when that I really think Creationists have to end up in a conspiracy theory mindset to ‘explain away’ the evidence.
Also, while it is fresh on my mind: last night we looked at the flood. Weren’t all the Nephilim all wiped out in the flood?
33 We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”
I see this as evidence that the flood was a local event.
Translators have been too impacted by the likes of Cecil B Demil’s movies and Creationist dogma of the last 80 years to really translate properly!
The word ‘earth’ stands for ‘land’ in many places, eg: “the ‘earth’ of the Israelites, the ‘earth’ of the Canaanites etc. The word translated as “mountains” can also be “hills”. Local animal species would have had to be saved otherwise their disrupted ecosystems would have spelled extinction. (Many animals have enormous trouble surviving outside their own ecosystem). Noah could easily have been a local event, but the Creationist tries to interpret all global fossil evidence and geological layers as coming from a flood 6000 years ago! http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
I wasn’t thinking of scientists at all Dave! I was thinking of the demythologising Biblical minimalists, people like Bultmann or Spong. I’d be interested to hear how many demythologising evolutionists there are, but I wouldn’t think there would necessarily be that much of a correlation between the two. Actually I would expect the demythologisers to be firm evolutionists, they have no reason not to be. But I wouldn’t expect all/many Christian evolutionists to be demythologisers.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy. I think the results that all these fields of science gives us are usually good, based on their assumption that the supernatural has not happened. But I know the supernatural and miraculous has happened, so I am not bound to every conclusion science reaches. I’m also not much of a fan of uniformitarianism.
Those who claimed they saw the Nephilim, and that the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim, were in the habit of lying and promoting disbelief in the power and promises of God. I wouldn’t exactly call them reliable witnesses. The Anakites are mentioned many other times, and are often called giants, even by Moses, but are never again connected with the Nephilim.
If the Nephilim did survive the flood, as it was only a local one, then what point did the flood serve? The Nephilim were the final straw in God’s eyes, an evil so unacceptable that God had to wipe them out.
Although I do think the flood was global, I don’t think believing in a local flood is in itself heretical. However I do think there are a number of questions you would have to answer:
If the flood was local, did any humans survive outside the ark? If so, what does God mean in Gen 6:7, and verse 13?
How do you contain a local flood if it is rising 22 feet about the highest points which define that catchment?
If you can contain the flood waters, how to retain them for the several months 7:24 records?
What does the promise of the rainbow really mean?
Can phrases like “all life” in 9:15 be shown to also be geographically limited?
Also, I didn’t know the word usually translated earth could be translated more like land… I thought that it would be more like the world of the Ancient Near East, not an individual nation within it, ie, the extent of human civilisation. Are there examples where it does refer to just a smaller national area in the Bible?
The bigger picture with Noah’s covenant is that it is a renewal of the covenant God made originally with Adam and creation. This is why God repeats the commandment to fill the earth. Along with this, God also gives up what was his prerogative, to take the lives of people and animals. Previously only God could (remember Cain), but now he instructs humanity to execute murderers, and to have power over animals to the extent that they could be eaten. I think Noah’s covenant only makes sense if God completely resets the creation, back to the way it was in Genesis 1, except without any new special creations, and it is still corrupted by sin.
[ Edited: 11 September 2009 06:10 PM by Dannii Willis]
Yes but animal death in and of itself can’t be sinful because Jesus ate fish, and as far as I know wasn’t a vegetarian? Anyway, as for your other questions about Noah’s flood being local and the use of the word “earth” and the use of the word “mountains/hills” I’ll refer you to the link again.
The piece above takes it that human life was concentrated in the middle east at this stage, but I’m not convinced that God’s other book of ‘works’ confirms that. (EG: Aboriginals here for 40, 000 years).
As far as I can tell, it is an equally valid reading to say “the whole land was flooded” and everything to be referring to “all the life on the land”. Why didn’t God tell the animals to just ‘walk south’? Oftentimes ecosystems don’t mix. The Christmas island miniature bat may have just gone extinct because us humans took the wrong yellow ant to the island. All sorts of other ecosystems around the globe are in trouble because our manic transport requirements are taking invasive species which are wiping out local wildlife. EG: Cane toads, lantana, privet in local forests, etc.
I’m not saying animal death is sinful, but that it is the result of sin. It wasn’t God’s desire that they die originally. (Though your comment about overpopulation without animal death is an interesting one, which I haven’t got an answer to yet.)
Interesting article… they think all humanity died aside from those on the ark, so I guess I would be mostly happy with that.
But, they do seem to have a few problems:
Their argument to show that ‘all’ doesn’t mean all is that Noah wasn’t corrupt. But I don’t think anything in Genesis suggests he was an exception.
They say that the flood was 15 cubits tall, and then that the flood only covered the hills that Noah could see. But the height of the ark was 30 cubits! If Noah had stood on the roof of the ark he could have seen hills taller than 15 cubits! Also, why build an ark if the water would only be 15 cubits in depth?
The Middle east is known for its flood plains. Noah’s flood could not have been just an annual flood, and it must have covered far more than the flood plain area.
For the local flood interpretation to work, I think you must make all of these assumptions:
That humanity was very localised, in a single catchment area, which is strongly contradicted by both palaeontology, archaeology and history.
That the writer of Genesis was ignorant about their own local geography, and no editor even corrected it. (The four rivers split from a common source, rather than having two rivers join into one. The better explanation is that the flood survivors named their new world after places they knew from before. Otherwise we would have to say that Sydney is in the UK because it has suburbs named Liverpool and Canterbury!)
That the Biblical text greatly lengthened the flood’s duration.
That the ‘all flesh’ of 9:15 is also limited geographically. Because animals were clearly not limited to one catchment. And does that mean most of the animals weren’t protected by God’s covenant?
Honestly the mythological global flood interpretation is sounding like a better one than the historical local flood interpretation. But for both you have to deal with what its real theological significance is. Is God renewing the covenant of creation?
[ Edited: 12 September 2009 12:39 PM by Dannii Willis]
They say that the flood was 15 cubits tall, and then that the flood only covered the hills that Noah could see. But the height of the ark was 30 cubits! If Noah had stood on the roof of the ark he could have seen hills taller than 15 cubits! Also, why build an ark if the water would only be 15 cubits in depth?
This link, although atheistic, poses some valid questions about the real physical limitations, and logicality, of an ark, similar to the Genesis story, ever existing.
This boat would have had to have been bigger than a super-tanker!
There are MILLIONS of species on the land. There are over three hundred and fifty thousand species of beetle alone. The sheer number of insects would fill several arks, before you even consider the larger creatures. The ark would have to be the single largest ship ever in the history of the world. Modern technology could not possibly create a ship large and stable enough to act as Noah’s Ark .....
Many species of land animal require highly specialised habitat and food to survive. Koalas, for instance, eat one kilogram of fresh Eucalyptus- tree leaves per day, which provide all their water and nutrition (some people have suggested Noah had a year’s supply of dried Euc. leaves. But Koalas need the leaves for their water. What did Noah do? Rehydrate them? With what, a desalination plant? Hold them out in the rain every morning?)...
How could the ark cope with disposing of the waste products of those creatures? It must have had an incredibly advanced plumbing and ventilation system, superior to anything to be found on modern ocean liners or large military vessels (eg. aircraft carriers). One problem that dairy farmers have is that vast quantities of fresh dung produce highly toxic gases (falling into the slurry pit can be fatal because of this), and it would have been many times worse on an Ark. Next time you are at a zoo, ask one of the keepers how easy it is to deal with the needs of the few hundred animals they have for a month, and then imagine scaling that up to a gigantic floating zoo with millions of creatures being looked after by one old man and his family. ....
Using modern equipment, it can take a good shipyard years to build a large ship, using hundreds of men. Noah (five hundred years old at the time) apparently had himself, a few helpers and a lot of gopher-wood trees. We are expected to believe that he built the Ark, using crude hand-tools, over a period of many years in a world filled with evil, scheming criminals. (“The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.”)
Here are a few of the things he would have had to deal with:-
Wood rotting. Left out in the open, the partly-built Ark would be exposed to the elements, such as rain, wind, lightning (a large structure is likely to get struck quite often, and wood burns), fungus, termites and ravenous beavers (well, maybe not beavers).
Maybe he first built a huge hangar in which he could construct it safely? That would have almost as great an enterprise as the Ark itself! Unfortunately, the Bible does not enlighten us as to the whereabouts of Noah’s Shed. I guess it was washed away in the Flood…
Theft and vandalism. The hordes of fiendish deviants living around Noah at the time would no doubt have had enjoyed enormous sinful fun by sabotaging the Ark, stealing the wood for themselves (why cut and prepare your own wood when Noah’s done the job for you?) and harassing the few workers.
[ Edited: 13 September 2009 10:09 AM by Ken Austin]
Ken, read the text yourself and then come up with your own arugments. Theirs are pathetic!
Insects weren’t necessarily taken on the ark! They don’t have nostrels. Even if they were, the Bible does not speak of species, but of kinds. It’s probably closer to what we call genera.
As to Koalas, well the evidence shows that they actually become addicted to Eucalyptus. Koalas raised in captivied can be fed other things. (In any case I would see this as an adaption that took place after they arrived in Australia.)
As to the waste products etc, you should read the feasibility study. It does a decent job at explaining the use of deep bedding. It is possible many of the animals were in a form of hibernation too.
As to the thieves and vandals… well that’s a new one! However if that’s the strongest argument they have against the ark… well it’s not a good one!
[ Edited: 13 September 2009 01:21 PM by Dannii Willis]
Have we got to Adam and Eve riding vegetarian velociraptors in 4000 BC yet? (Is it 4000 or 8000? I can never remember.)
While anyone holds Dannii’s view of: “But I know the supernatural and miraculous has happened, so I am not bound to every conclusion science reaches” then you’re in for a loooong thread :P
As for Woodmorappe’s “study” - Dannii you’ve brought this up several times over the years, and several times failed to point out it has been thoroughly debunked (which Woodmorappe responded to here in a rather colourful fashion, both figuratively and literally).
The central problem for creationists is that to debunk creationism is to debunk Christianity. Creationists are therefore faced with either an existential crisis of faith/meaning/existence, or throwing up more and more arguments that have been debunked time and again for years and years and years.
Of course there’s a third way - accept evolution and Christianity, but this is apparently even more unpalatable than the other two options!
Hmm I take it from the initial post that my previous post was too harsh, so, sorry!
I agree we have fundamentally different ways of looking at the issue. I don’t think I can look at the world or the bible and insist that history/science/experience must conform to one particular reading of an ancient text, in the face of all evidence to the contrary. I also don’t think, from my own point of view, that it matters if *I* think xyz God is “worth” following or not, that’s neither here nor there imo.
I think there is a lot of work to be done in reconciling what is now known (evolution) along with what we observe day to day (e.g. my comments about a mostly non-interventionist God), with what we know from the bible and history (ie Jesus existed and did what was recorded). In my opinion it’s not either/or, but the path forward is largely unknown, and will probably look somewhat different to what has been, but in any case the work needs to be done and it would be far more productive to work towards that than repeat these endless creationist debates. Heck, even in the hypothetical it would be much more interesting imo.
This is not that historically unusual either - our understanding of Christianity has evolved (no pun intended) over the ages, and will, in my opinion, continue to as new information comes to light, until all possible information is known, which is still obviously some ways (millenia) off!
I don’t think I can look at the world or the bible and insist that history/science/experience must conform to one particular reading of an ancient text, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
When have I ever said something like this? I am open to other readings, as shown by my discussions with Dave, nor do I think the evidence is to the contrary.
I think there is a lot of work to be done in reconciling what is now known (evolution) along with what we observe day to day (e.g. my comments about a mostly non-interventionist God), with what we know from the bible and history (ie Jesus existed and did what was recorded).
Yes God doesn’t intervene in massive world-changing ways all that often. I believe God does frequently intervene today, but it’s not easy to observe. However to take the Bible seriously you would have to say it does record times in the past when God intervened massively.
Take the flood for one example. I believe the Bible does teach it was global, primarily because otherwise God’s covenant doesn’t make a lot of sense otherwise. Yes this is one particular reading, but it’s not like I’m saying “My NIV says all the high mountains!!!!” I might sometimes accept a literalistic interpretation, but only if it first supports the theological interpretation. As Dave as shown the language used is not so clear, however I don’t think the local flood can make full sense theologically. Now if it was a global flood then obviously the geology of the world would be impacted in a big way, but this intervention of God. Then you’re just left with the problem of dating these rocks.
I also don’t think evolution is the known you think it is. Adaptation is known, but abiogenesis isn’t. Mutations are known, but how they can generate new information isn’t (though you can define information in a less useful way such that it does). There are many other problems, which are shared by some non-Christians too, though I don’t really want to discuss them, and I don’t think you’d be interested either.
The Flood:
Some people might find it a little odd that God, omnipotent being who can create entire galaxies in an instant, takes weeks and weeks to flood the planet. Perhaps water is a bit fiddly to create?
How much water was there?
And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Over the top of Mt. Everest then? The volume of water would have been astronomical. Millions of cubic miles. Where did it come from? Where did it go? The polar ice-caps are not big enough. The atmosphere does not contain millions of cubic miles of water.
Using a bit of armchair maths, we can roughly calculate how much water would have been needed to cover the planet to the top of Mt. Everest:
The radius of the Earth is approx. 6370km
The height of Everest above sea-level is approx. 8.8 km
Therefore, the volume of the Earth is approx. 1,082,696,932,000km³, or 1,080 billion cubic kilometers.
The volume of the earth to the height of Everest is 1,087,190,293,000km³
Subtracting the first volume from the second gives approx. 4,493,361,000, or four thousand, five hundred million cubic kilometers of water!
Also, this rain is supposed to have fallen within about 40 days. That means that there would have been about 220 metres of rainfall every day over the entire planet (8800/40 = 220)! A few centimetres in a day is considered to be extremely heavy rain.
( Note: volume of sphere = 4/3 pi r³, and I use the American billion of 1,000,000,000 here )
Really, all I can say is .... that’s a bit hard to swallow!
Also people might like to read this link: Noah’s Ark
The link does point out some limits that rule out such a vessel. I don’t expect Creationists to argue any points in this link, unless I quote them….going on past experience with the first link. But I will quote one of them:
From all fossil and rock records, there is great proof that the Earth is well over 4 billion years old. Most of these great mountains and valley have existed for hundreds of thousands of years and contain fossil evidence of animals which were extinct even before the Flood story.
The Flood would have been around 2500 BC. There was no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which not only existed, but thrived during this same time. Great civilizations such as the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Indus Valley, not to mention the Americas, Australia, and Far East have been proven to have existing, thriving populations during and after the time of the Biblical Flood.
[ Edited: 14 September 2009 02:30 PM by Ken Austin]
Hi Ken, they have good arguments against one view of the flood, but that is a naive view that few Creationists would actually believe.
Most would believe that the earth was a lot flatter before. The mountains or hills of the time were no Himalayas. The most significant part of the flood was actually the tectonic activity, not the rain. It continued long after the rains stopped, and it’s likely that when Genesis records the waters receding, the waters were flowing into the ocean basis as the continents rose and the basins were lowered. I think Psalm 104:8 refers both to the original creation, and the “recreation” that happened after the flood. (Again it is the theology behind Noah’s covenant and God’s recreation that drives the global flood interpretation.) It was only from these tectonic actions of the flood that we now have the massive mountain ranges. And where did it go? It’s still here, in the ocean basins. If the earth’s surface was flat the oceans would rise 3km above.
Yay dating methods! Again, we can’t measure age, we can just measure element ratios. The date of the earth is actually calculated from the age of meteorites, so what they measure is really the age of the supposed accretionary disk. So the age of the earth is largely derived from a dubious theory about planetary formation. (Among other problems with the standard model is the fact that the sun has only 1% of the solar system’s angular momentum.)
As to the civilisations, well the dating of these is not so simple either. There are many historians, non-Christians included, who think that the standard chronologies need to be revised, due to research that suggests many dynasties were concurrent. I would actually love to read what Dickson thinks about theories like that, as well as the Documentary Hypothesis.
[ Edited: 14 September 2009 11:37 PM by Dannii Willis]
Dannii, as Luke pointed out, Creationist explanations really cling to straws.
The mountain formations of 5000 years ago would not have been much different to today. The rate of mountain growth is not that quick.
I don’t think it is fruitful to debate this subject with you. You will use well worn Creationist arguments, which have all been proved incorrect by others time and time again.
You deny most of the sciences in you attempts to justify history and science on the basis of incorrectly reading Genesis really from a literal point of view. This way of reading it is not accepted by reputable Christian theologians.
The mountain formations of 5000 years ago would not have been much different to today. The rate of mountain growth is not that quick.
Normally, yes. But if there was a miraculous unique flood, who can say?
You deny most of the sciences in you attempts to justify history and science on the basis of incorrectly reading Genesis really from a literal point of view. This way of reading it is not accepted by reputable Christian theologians.
At least do me the decency of saying I read these early chapters of Genesis historically. Please?
Also as far as I know, you never answered these questions of mine. You don’t have to, but I will be genuinely interested in understand any answers you give. You may even convince me your interpretations are correct.
1. To be able to become spiritually dead would require you to be spiritually alive first. Most of theologians do not believe that pre-Homo sapiens hominids were spiritual beings, and some might say that it is something that came a long time after Homo sapiens became a distinct species, more around the time of civilisation. So who were the first spiritually alive person/people? A Homo sapiens? The first? Before? After?
2. If one man brought spiritual death, why believe that another man (Jesus) will bring physical and spiritual life? Or, what evidence do you have that 1 Cor 15:21 means that one man brought spiritual death and another man spiritual and physical life?
I am not very interested in science. I am most interested in protecting the Gospel from people who want to attack it at its foundations by saying God doesn’t punish sin with death. And anyone who does that, no matter how reputable or popular they are, is a heretic and needs to be first lovingly corrected and then publicly rebuked.
[ Edited: 15 September 2009 10:28 PM by Dannii Willis]
Dannii, these theologians are not saying that… there are various ‘models’ that answer your objections. We are asking questions the passage simply does not answer, it has other concerns. Yes we ‘die’ because of sin, but what does death mean? And does having evolved to a certain ‘spiritual awakening point’ then rule out that physical death could have been suspended for the new ‘spiritually aware’ humans, at least for a time? (Michael Jensen’s musings: Walking with God in the garden and eating from the tree-of-life may have suspended the ‘normal’ processes and genetic potential for physical death, and yet when we rebelled against our Heavenly Father we were returned to the normal physical processes and the dust from which we were made).
At least do me the decency of saying I read these early chapters of Genesis historically. Please?
Yes, and that’s the problem. Other parts of the bible say things like “the trees of the field will clap their hands”. Do I read that historically?
You read the highly figurative and metaphorical writing literally, and then call anyone who doesn’t a heretic. Nice.
Then you play with science like it’s creative writing. The tactics used by creationists bring to mind similar tactics used by so many global warming sceptics.
I’m interested in what the peer reviewed science is saying, not the whacky books and strange models promoted by creationists.
They’d have us deny that ice-core samples confirm Milankovitch wobbles in the earth’s axis confirm Co2 levels follow temperature changes by 800 years and are yet another means by which we know the earth is incredibly old. (At least a million years just from the Antarctic ice-core samples alone).
They’d have us deny geological layers and ages of the earth, and ask us to believe that an almighty and chaotic worldwide flood laid down all those animals (apparently all living together at the same time) in specific layers neatly separated by…. something.
On the one hand I hear about Creationist models of the flood being a 5 km high super-tsunami travelling faster than the speed of sound. On the other hand, we have pre-dinosaur reptiles laid out in one neat layer, dinosaurs in another, post-dinosaur smallish mammals in another, and then mega-mammals in another. These are all neatly separated by geological time in the conventional mainstream peer-reviewed model. All separated by… what exactly… in the Creationist model? Why don’t we have protodons and T-Rex next to some megafauna and aboriginals and sabre-tooths and postosoukas (spelling? Pre-dinosaur mega-crodile thing) all mixed up and laying together on the same layer, if they were all part of the same animal kingdom destroyed by the flood? I don’t buy the “where they were standing in the ecosystem at the time” arguments from Creationists. Floods mix everything up and drag it all around for miles.
I just can’t buy it.
Let alone the age of the universe given to us by the time it takes light to cross the 14 billion light-year wide universe. Yes I know about relativity, but why hasn’t the peer-reviewed science suggested the universe might only be 10,000 years old under the normal models? Why didn’t Einstein suggest it, if it is all so self evident? It’s science as a creative imagining process.
I’m glad the ones you like don’t, but others certainly do.
Yes, and that’s the problem. Other parts of the bible say things like “the trees of the field will clap their hands”. Do I read that historically?
... genres Dave, heard of them? Whatever precise genres Genesis 1-11 have it fits broadly into the historical record genre, and is part of the primary history. Isaiah 55 is firmly within the poetical genre range. However that aside, yes you potentially could read it historically, if you could demonstrate that it is an idiom used to refer to real world things. Historical interpretations can be made out of historical genres and non-historical genres (like the parallelisms between Judges 4 and 5), and can involve figurative and non-figurative language. To conflate historical interpretations with literalistic readings of figurative idioms suggests you don’t have any basic understanding of linguistics.
You read the highly figurative and metaphorical writing literally, and then call anyone who doesn’t a heretic. Nice.
I’m not sure you’ve demonstrated that Genesis 1 etc are highly figurative… only that they are highly stylised, which is really a quite different issue. That it emulates the form of other creation myths and has a structure based around repeated sevens does not mean it is highly figurative.
I just can’t buy it.
I don’t really get the creationist understandings of flood sortings either. Honestly, I don’t really care. It’s not important.
But there are other things I don’t buy, such as mutations generating new and novel information that lead to new functionality, despite entropy, and despite the evidence that the vast majority of mutations known to us reduce biodiversity and are often harmful.
Let alone the age of the universe given to us by the time it takes light to cross the 14 billion light-year wide universe. Yes I know about relativity, but why hasn’t the peer-reviewed science suggested the universe might only be 10,000 years old under the normal models? Why didn’t Einstein suggest it, if it is all so self evident? It’s science as a creative imagining process.
Well I don’t go for those models either. I’m a believer in the apparent age of the universe.
Whatever precise genres Genesis 1-11 have it fits broadly into the historical record genre, and is part of the primary history.
Yet my Bible Commentary,written by Don Carson, RT France, JA Motyer & GJ Wenham says something like this:
“Observations say the Patriarchal stories are historical, but when we come to Chapters 1-11, we are treading on different ground.
Most of these periods were written long before writing was invented, so they cannot be “history” in the true sense of the term, or be verified from outside the Bible.
However Genesis does try to arrange these stories chronologically and explain things in terms of cause and effect.
These are the hallmarks of history writings, so that T Jacobsen has coined the term “mytho-historical” to describe such literature.
“Myth” has negative overtones, so ‘proto-history’ is probably a better way to describe Genesis 1-11.
NB: I believe Genesis 1-11 can be read in two ways. As an allegory, or literally. As a child I read it literally, and I would never criticise that way of reading it by anyone. God bless you if you read it in that way. No criticism coming for that.
But for myself, at my age, after learning more about the relatively indisputable physical science of the world, I agree with expert theologians that the story is allegorical.
Most of these periods were written long before writing was invented, so they cannot be “history” in the true sense of the term, or be verified from outside the Bible.
However Genesis does try to arrange these stories chronologically and explain things in terms of cause and effect.
These are the hallmarks of history writings, so that T Jacobsen has coined the term “mytho-historical” to describe such literature.
“Myth” has negative overtones, so ‘proto-history’ is probably a better way to describe Genesis 1-11.
How do we know for certain that they could not write? We have no records of it, but if there was a flood that destroyed that world, we would not expect any either. Genesis 5:1 does say “book”, not “sayings” or “lore” or other such non-literary words… Also, I didn’t know verifiability is a requirement of history? Surely there are lots of historical records which cannot be verified?
Not saying I can prove they did write, or that it is all that important either way. But I do think it is a definite possibility.
I guess I’m okay with that terminology, even with ‘myth’ properly qualified.
What I had meant was that Genesis 2-11 has a great deal in common and shows a continuity with Genesis 12-2 Kings, and has far more in common with the definite histories than with the poetry or wisdom literature or prophesies. I don’t know of anyone who has shown that Genesis 2-11 is stylistically different from Genesis 12 and later. Genesis 1 is stylistically quite different, though I wouldn’t think that would require it to be ahistorical.
NB: I believe Genesis 1-11 can be read in two ways. As an allegory, or literally. As a child I read it literally, and I would never criticise that way of reading it by anyone. God bless you if you read it in that way. No criticism coming for that.
But for myself, at my age, after learning more about the relatively indisputable physical science of the world, I agree with expert theologians that the story is allegorical.
I agree that it is allegorical. I also think that as a secondary purpose it is a historical record of what happened, and I think it makes for a stronger allegory than the ahistorical allegory. My speculation is that Moses (and perhaps later editors) wove together primarily or purely historical records together into one document with a new allegorical and polemic purpose.
I don’t like the idea of an ahistorical allegory (ie, one that is entirely uninterested in history and makes no claims about it) because I think that many of the things it teaches are of a historical nature. Either God was in a perfect relationship with a man and a woman at some time, or he wasn’t. They either did have the perfectly free choice, untainted by sin, to choose whether to sin or not, or they didn’t. I think that these questions really matter.
Btw Dave, how does your protected garden theory deal with Gen 3:17? It says there that the land is cursed because of Adam. If that referred to the garden there’d be no reason to protect it from the people by banning them from entering. If it refers to outside the garden (where a local area or the whole earth), well wasn’t outside the garden still a harsh place filled with suffering and death throughout the whole time they were in the garden?
[ Edited: 16 September 2009 07:08 PM by Dannii Willis]
I agree that it is allegorical. I also think that as a secondary purpose it is a historical record of what happened, and I think it makes for a stronger allegory than the ahistorical allegory. My speculation is that Moses (and perhaps later editors) wove together primarily or purely historical records together into one document with a new allegorical and polemic purpose.
I think you have to demonstrate that it is historical. I’d say that it has ‘historical elements’. I’m still waiting to get time to read Wenham on the language used, but John Dickson’s piece on Genesis 1 indicates extremely clearly to me that it is a very allegorical polemic and the moment we try to read it as history we’re missing the point.
Btw Dave, how does your protected garden theory deal with Gen 3:17? It says there that the land is cursed because of Adam. If that referred to the garden there’d be no reason to protect it from the people by banning them from entering. If it refers to outside the garden (where a local area or the whole earth), well wasn’t outside the garden still a harsh place filled with suffering and death throughout the whole time they were in the garden?
It’s just a ‘model’ illustrating some of the possibilities if we really are determined to push scientific questions on a largely theological passage. Whatever the actual series of events, we die because of sin. Can we agree on that?
Anyway, I’m totally geeking out about this whole subject from a different angle today. Anyone see the whole “BattleStar Galactica” series? Warning, spoilers if you continue to read this thread.
Spoiler warning!
Spoiler warning!
Joy and I just finished watching the last 5 episodes yesterday. Awesome SCI-FI! I’m still completely in the zone, geeking out severely over the way the series ended. Ooooooooh, shiny! The biggest “wow” I’ve had since “Minority Report” or the end of Steven Spielberg’s “AI”. Anyone else see Battlestar through to the end? But if you have seen it through to the end, you can’t help but see the irony of my brain being totally in BSG mode and then contributing to this particular discussion, and the weird things it’s doing to my head. ;-)
I think you have to demonstrate that it is historical. I’d say that it has ‘historical elements’. I’m still waiting to get time to read Wenham on the language used, but John Dickson’s piece on Genesis 1 indicates extremely clearly to me that it is a very allegorical polemic and the moment we try to read it as history we’re missing the point.
Genesis 1 definitely. What what about the next few chapters? I don’t read Hebrew and I don’t know of anyone who has written about these chapters from the genre perspective. However passages like 1 Chronicles 1 show that they at least thought these chapters referred to historical people (at least when the chronicles were written.) Maybe the historicity of these people would be what you’d call a “historical element.” I would be open to seeing things like the talking serpent as mythological elements too. I think it’s definitely possible that Satan (if indeed it was Satan) could take a serpent and make it talk, but I have no reasons why he actually would. But then if it was mythological why would a serpent be chosen? I don’t think that just because a lot of people are scared of them is a good enough reason.
It’s just a ‘model’ illustrating some of the possibilities if we really are determined to push scientific questions on a largely theological passage. Whatever the actual series of events, we die because of sin. Can we agree on that?
Yes.
But… I do think you have the hard position to then explain human evolution, which requires a lot of death. You may not be interested in explaining that, which is fine, but I wouldn’t think you could have a full and comprehensive doctrine of creation unless you do.
I also should really study those NT passages to see whether the death that comes from sin is limited to human death. That is where the heart of my argument against theological evolution is, but I haven’t done the hard language work to prove it.
And no, I haven’t ever watched Battlestar Galactica! sorry!
And no, I haven’t ever watched Battlestar Galactica! sorry!
Now THAT is a crime! ;-) Joy and I were geeking out about it for a few days afterwards. It was a very satisfying ending! Many, many threads were tied off and explained in the final season, which cast the whole story so far in a new light and explained the “Scriptures of Kobol” really well. (Part of the back-story and ultimate mythology of that universe). Really worth it.
But back on topic, especially the NT on death… the sting of death is sin. Check it out!
Yeah the part that stings about it is that it is entirely your fault, that without sinning you wouldn’t have died. The ultimate regret… that’s what stings.
I think you’re latching on to one phrase to… actually I don’t know why you’re bringing it up. What do you think the significance of “the sting of death is sin” is?
How to understand Genesis 1 was something that tortured me for years. As a student of history I felt it was vital to at least begin to understand what this book is.
I found Rikk Watts’ (Regent College) take on genre and ancient creation-myths to be very helpful. I particularly like his examination of the parallels with Egyptian creation traditions. it’s something I’d not encountered before which is weird when you consider they Hebrews had just spent several hundred years emersed in this culture!
I also like his dismissal of the whole “days” argument. It can get so tiresome!
Yes, the passage does refer to literal 24 hour days. But it’s poetry, not science.
Genre and history are the key.
If you don’t have time to read it, here’s a bite from his conclusions (argued in more detail elsewhere).
“What might we conclude about the truth claims and significance of Genesis 1? Given its genre—a highly stylized form and unrealistic content—I would suggest that it is not to be taken “literally” in the popular modern Western sense as a blow-by-blow, chronologically accurate, account of creation. No one in the ancient world, apart from the isolated account of the time taken to build Baal’s palace, seems particularly concerned with these kinds of questions. Our chronos-fixated age measures things in nanoseconds and smaller—but not theirs. Rather, the pattern of days probably derives from the ancients’ understanding of the structure of their world—day/night, above/below, and land/sea—this being conceptualized in terms of the deity’s construction of his palace-temple as he gives it form and fills it. The fundamental issue is that it is Yahweh, Israel’s God, a God who cares for slaves, non-entities, and even non-Israelites (cf. the mixed multitude who are also delivered from Pharaoh’s genocidal proclivities; Exod 12:38), who brought order to the world, not the failed deities of oppressive Egypt nor, to a lesser degree, those of Canaan or Mesopotamia. And in doing so, it uses the language and imagery to which that world, and particularly Egypt, was accustomed. This is hardly suprising.
[null]Catholics File Suits on Contraceptive CoverageNew York Times[{}]At least 11 other Catholic and evangelical organizations had already filed lawsuits challenging the birth control mandate, but those cases are still pending. The White House declined to comment on Monday, instead providing President Obama's comments ...
[null]Catholic Groups File Suits on Contraceptive CoverageNew York Times[{}]At least 11 other Catholic and evangelical organizations had already filed lawsuits challenging the birth control mandate, but those cases are still pending. The White House declined to comment on Monday, instead providing President Obama's comments ...
RSS Feed