Genesis One and Beyond: An Investigation of the Temporal Questions of Creation in the

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...547#post317547


Hi again OOT,

For some reason, I thought you explicitly said that day 5 goes back to day 2 and that day 6 goes back to day 3. Looking back, I see this is not the case. I agree that a note would be very helpful to clear this point up.

Cool. Then we agree on something. *grin*

But this isn't what the FI says. The historical order _might_ correspond with the narrative order, but doesn't necessarily since the text is _thematically_ organized. It's not saying that there are 3 time periods (A, B, and C as you listed them). Basically, Days 1 and 4 match up and the other 4 are left floating free.

I see, so theoretically we could have the order reversed, day 6, 5, 3, 2, then 1/4 or any other order of these five events. What is the correct order really isn’t under discussion, you just accept that Genesis isn’t necessarily chronological.

Theoretically, yes, the FI per se doesn't specify the order/nature of the other days. However, common-sense (to both us and them) would lead us to believe that the creation of the plants and animals would come after the creation of the land and not vice-versa. Again it's not the literary framework itself that leads us to that conclusion, but just a recognition that God would create the land before creating animals to live on it.

The basis for Moses using the genesis account to establish a 7th day of rest is that the Sabbatical frameworks are built on the Genesis creation narrative. Since the narrative has the 6+1, it's usable for the 6+1 week.

In my view, this seems very shaky. First, we now have a five-day creation event.

Why do you think there's a five-day creation event?

Honestly, I’m not trying to be impertinent, though I feel my (somewhat rhetorical) questions above stem from a major epistemological divide that separates our approaches to understanding Genesis. While I feel that it is a vital issue, offhand it seems inappropriate for this thread, though we can get into it if you want. I'll leave it at this: the only reason I can see for wanting to unite day 1 and 4 and allow for dischronologization is to synthesize Genesis with modern science to avoid the ridicule placed on the Bible by fallen men who would not believe God even if the first two chapters were a summery of Darwin’s Origin of Species. I presume harmonizing Genesis with Evolution is the primary motive for all non-literal interpretations of Genesis.

Oh, I don't think you're being impertinent at all.

I do understand why you would consider that my motivation, and I know that telling you "really, that's not it" won't matter, but that goes to the issue of motivation versus argument. _Even if_ my motivation were that way, it wouldn't challenge the situation that I've sufficiently (at least for me and a few others) established dischronologization based on good arguments and referencing solid scholarship. (Unless you don't consider Buth a scholar, or his work credible) It is, of course, your prerogative to assume that as the primary motive, but you'll have to also realize that carries absolutely zero argumentative value.

I guess this would come down to weighing the evidence for whether or not one could even have dischronologization here. Basically there are two options as I see it:

1. Dischronologization is impossible here because of the use of the sequential narrative structure.
2. Dischronologization is possible here, and is indicated by:
2.1 clear literary framework (same thematic content for day pairs)
2.2 lexical repetition for days 1/4 (see Buth's work I cited)
2.3 identical purpose for days 1/4

Now, you may perhaps think #1, which would rule out in advance _any_ argument that I could offer contending otherwise, and there's no way I could convince you. I don't think that a third option of "dischronologization is possible, but not indicated here" is a rational alternative, since it couldn't get much better than the 3 sub-arguments listed above.

I personally agree with #1, as you’ve guessed. Though I’m not sure what you mean by your third option, since it seems to say mostly the same thing as #1. I’m willing to concede that it is possible that the FI is correct, but to me it seems overwhelmingly improbable. I say this because I am a 21th century American without detailed knowledge of Hebrew language and culture, and thus must admit with humility that my interpretation will be flawed at times.

Right, I would have guessed #1, and at this point it becomes a matter of presupposing that the FI can't be true because the narrative is written as a sequence, and therefore I wouldn't be able to convince you even in principle.

On the difference, #1 would be "the fact that the narrative structure includes a succession of days rules out any possibility of dischronologization"
#2 would be "the fact that the narrative structure includes a succession of days doesn't rule out dischronologization, but nothing in the text indicates that dischronologization is present.

#1 I consider a respectable (though completely wrongheaded, of course) position
#2 is just silly, because the three evidences should convince anyone who hasn't already presupposed that dischronologization is impossible

That's the difference between the first and third options.

I think I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. I happen to disagree, but this discussion has been very enlightening for me. I have heard only short summaries of your position before, and never one so detailed and well thought out.

I'm glad you've found it enlightening, and hopefully someday you'll convert. *big grin*

Thanks again for your comments and kind words. You've been a very courteous discussion partner.

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re: the bottom half of
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...297#post311297

Continuing on from the last post to One Bad Pig...

1. The obvious two-triadic literary framework in Genesis 1.

I see no problem with the thematic arrangement, just your interpretation of it. Why couldn't God have chosen to perform similar actions on Days 1/4 and 2/5 and 3/6? The thematic arrangement wouldn't provide any problems for the 24-hour interpretation (or the Day-Age, for that matter).

1. God could have had Moses describe the same events under the different days of 2/5 and 3/6. However, the only one we have data for that suggests he did is on the Days 1/4 combo. The FI doesn't rule out the same for the other two, but neither does it teach it.

2. It's true that one can accept that the FI is the best interpretation of the Genesis text, and still hold YEC or OEC views. However, no longer can the Genesis creation text be appealed to support those arguments. The support would have to come from another source.

In Psalm 50:10, God says he owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Now, it's entirely possible that at the time the Psalmist spoke there were exactly 1000 hills on the earth on which cattle were standing, and therefore God owned the cattle on exactly 1000 hills, but the evidence for such a belief would have to come from somewhere outside the text of Psalm 50:10 because it's already been identified as a literary device in that text. The burden of proof is squarely on the one who wants both a metaphorical usage _and_ to have it mean something 'straightforward'.

2. The evidence that Day 4 is a return to the events of Day 1 and describes in more detail how God separated the light from the darkness.

The evidence shows a thematic similarity between Days 1 and 4. Your interpretation advocates the FI position. There is a difference.

Not the argument of the paper.

3. The principle of continuity, showing that God established the ordinary means of sustaining a creation before he created it.

"I think that God should have worked this way, so I'll ignore the plain meaning of the text in favor of my own interpretation." Sarcasm Great exegesis. /Sarcasm

Not the argument of the paper.

[snip]

You're supporting the FI viewpoint rather dogmatically for your tentative agreement with it. Sounds like you've already convinced yourself.

I'm holding on to my arguments because I think they make sense and can defend them, and I've seen nothing to change my mind so far. I wouldn't consider that dogmatism. When you dismiss my entire argument about Moses and his audience's shared assumption about how God operated, based on Genesis 2:5 with:

"I think that God should have worked this way, so I'll ignore the plain meaning of the text in favor of my own interpretation." Sarcasm Great exegesis. /Sarcasm

Well how do you expect me to react when I see stuff like this? "Wow! Amazing! I've just converted to the 24hr view!"? Responses like this only increase my confidence in the strength of my arguments.

Oh, and please just ignore the posters who are unable to offer anything substantive and can only scream-and-hollar and insult people when their pet arguments are going down the drain. It's sad that it's what some YEC have been reduced to. Fortunately, not all YE people are like that even if a highly vocal minority are.

Oh, so THAT's why you haven't responded to Soc's posts. How droll. I don't always agree with Soc's methods, but he does provide substantive arguments in many cases. He does get into shouting matches sometimes. (In case it isn't obvious, I'm ping Soc here.)

I've already publicly distanced myself from that member in a post/thread that was posted and deleted a while ago. • Edited by a Moderator • If you consider that 'droll' then so be it.

I want to be clear here that, though we are disagreeing a lot, I find you to be a respectable conversation partner, so please don't think that I associate you (or other YECs here) with his kind. I hope you think the same of me, even if you disagree with my choice to ignore him.

Regards,
Brian the Useful Idiot

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...942#post317942

For rhutchin

Comments--

A. The author needs to describe what a Framework Interpretation is (for dummies like me) and explain the methodology that it follows. The analysis presented seems structured to address competing interpretations of Genesis 1 rather than first presenting a neutral analysis that could then be compared to other views. It suggests an inherent bias on the part of the investigator to prove other positions wrong rather than establish a position that could then be proved right (anyway, it confused me).

The Framework Interpretation is described under the DEFINITION and TWO-TRIAD STRUCTURE sections of the paper. If you have further questions, feel free to ask them, but I do request that you spend time studying (not just reading) the material in order to understand it, if necessary.

And yes, the point was to compare the FI to the other two most popular interpretations of Genesis.

If I've come to the conclusion that the other two positions are wrong because of my research, that's not bias...it's simply acknowledging that the positions are mutually exclusive in regards to interpretation.

Finally, a 'neutral analysis' is a figment of the imagination. No one is completely neutral.

B. If we apply death only to mankind, then we establish the following:

1. God created Adam, the first human, and his wife, Eve. Without sin, there could be no human before Adam (unless you buy into Hugh Ross' soulless beings philosophy).

2. Given the genealogies that follow and allowing for the account to leave out a few generations, we can establish the appearance of Adam as no earlier than about 15,000 BC. (If not, then how many more generations do you estimate were left out?)

Consequently, the Framework Interpretation must agree with the literal 24-hour day so far as the creation of Adam is concerned.

This is highly debatable, to say the least.

Having established this position, the natural question is why do we need millions of years before Adam? Why depart from the 24-hr view? Inherently, a Framework Interpretation would seem to be indifferent as to the final outcome as to the length of a “day.”

Why depart from the 24-hour view? Because it's wrong, that's why.


The rest of your post doesn't seem worth interacting with, I suggest you rethink your position about the value of analyses.

If you'd like to follow the other posters here and post real arguments, I'd be happy to discuss.

Regards,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...592#post318592


Heya Sanity,

You are correct. This is what I meant. My experience on forums where the posts has taught me that "defining" points must be presented before the concept. If the concept is later expaned to include such points, even if it is only one sentence later, it is often too late. Once the reader has read, digested, and judged the concept, EVERYTHING after seems to be treated as if it involves a different and unrelated topic.

In other words, not all readers will go back and revise their original assessment of the concept when they encounter this new definition 1/2 page later.

Wow, that's pretty bad. I'll consider making a change for the next revision then!

I agree (I think I mentioned that?). Too much information can be just as bad as too little. (My failing tends to flip-flop between assuming the reader knows what I know and giving way too much information in an attempt to make sure they understand to the inth degree exactly what I mean. No doubt you have noticed that.)

You did mention it, and I was simply agreeing. Heh, I have the same problem that you do. Ahh well.

Thanks for the discussion, :)

Brian

[One Bad Pig]

11-26-2003 @ 12:29 AM post located here
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...297#post311297


Hi again OBP,

Dischronologization is fine, IF there are no qualifying time markers. Is it special pleading to say that David reigned before Solomon, or that Jericho fell before Ai, or that Paul visited Rome before being shipwrecked? Your position, when carried to its logical conclusion, becomes illogical.

I think there's still some confusion here. I understand why you would say something like:
A. If there are no qualifying time markers, then dischronologization is possible, but if there are markers such as found in Genesis 1, then dischronologization is not possible.

However, you _seem_ to be saying:
B. If there are no qualifying time markers, then dischronologization is possible and the use of it has no effect on truth/falsity, but if there are markers as found in Genesis 1, then while it is still possible, it means it is not truthful.

Is that what you are saying? Option "A" would be something I could see you easily saying. Option "B" as stated doesn't even really seem coherent to me, but it seems like that is what you are saying. Does that help make the questions more precise? If so, then help me understand which of those you're putting forward.

Statement A, with a slight modification: If there are no qualifying time markers, then dischronologization is possible, but if there are progressive markers such as found in Genesis 1, then dischronologization is not possible. [The caveat is for the gospel accounts, e.g. Jesus doing something on 'the Sabbath'] I also hold that any attempt to dischronologize a chronologically delineated account is eisegesis. It is possible to interpret a passage any way you please; it doesn't mean that that interpretation is truthful, though. This might explain your confusion.

Ok, then we misunderstood each other. BTW, I certainly wouldn't separate Day 7 conceptually from the preceding 6 days since it's not only an epilogue, but the capstone of the entire literary structure. And I agree that there is a difference between 'ruling' and 'filling' but I wouldn't peg that as a disagreement with the Framework Interpretation, merely a disagreement of a detail _within_ the details of the FI.

Okay. I'll see what I can do to get ahold of Steinmann's article. It'll take me a little while, as I'm going to Colorado for a week.

I think I see what your hangup is now. You just can't conceive of a 24-hour period defined by anything other than the sun.

That's not true at all. I even said in the paper that we (in the modern age) could define a day as "a specific fraction of the half-life of decaying Carbon-14."

Okay. Your hangup is that you can't conceive of a 24-hour period defined by anything other than the sun in the ANE. Fair enough? I agree that no-one in the ANE could have possibly come up with the creation account in the Bible on their own. As Safarti pointed out in his article, that's one reason the account is believable.

For your interpretation the first three are utterly abnormal, non-solar 24-hour periods of time. The whole argument comes down to the fact that I accept the usage of the word 'yom' in all six days as meaning normal days while you do not.

This, I think, is the crux of our differences. I disagree that the first three days are necessarily abnormal at all from an 'in the trenches' POV. At dawn, a light source appeared. At nightfall, it disappeared; hence, morning and evening, about 12 hours apart (assuming a near-equatorial POV).

The seventh day is somewhat less definitive, as the morning/evening formula is not used. However, using Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, we see that all 7 days are treated equally, confirming that the seventh day also lasted 24 hours. Please note that I am not using Exodus to argue that the first six days are literal. You (and Irons/Kline) are being artificially wooden in your interpretation of Ex. 31:17. Aside from God's divine attributes (deity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence), references to Him are necessarily metaphorical, unless you want to take the Mormon stance that God has a literal body.

Actually, that's not the case in that verse. If "God rested" is defined as "God ceased his world-creative activities" then there's no need to take it metaphorically. Since "God rested" includes more than that based on comparisons with other passages, I take it as metaphorical because I know that God does not actually get tired.

Okay. From the NET bible study notes for Ex. 31:17:

The word "rest" essentially means "to cease, stop." So in describing God as "resting" on the seventh day does not indicate that he was tired-he simply finished creation and then ceased or stopped.

[Ponders for a long moment...What am I trying to prove here? Oh; I don't agree that the seventh day is on-going.] I was going to say that 'ceasing' limits the seventh day to a literal one, but now I see that it has no bearing. On Hebrews 4, you said:

Hebrews 4 concerns the promised Sabbath-rest for the people of God. God rested in Genesis 2:2, and because we are to imitate him, it is our eschatological focus as ones made in the divine image to enter into his rest. While God rested on the seventh day, his rest that we are called to enter into is still ongoing as shown by several texts in Hebrews 4. Verse one tells us that the promise of entering his rest still stands:

Heb 4:1 - Therefore we must be wary that, while the promise of entering his rest remains open, none of you may seem to have come short of it.

In fact, the author of Hebrews appears to equate the seventh day of creation with his rest:

Heb 4:4-5 - For he has spoken somewhere about the seventh day in this way: “And God rested on the seventh day from all his works,” but to repeat the text cited earlier: “They will never enter my rest!”

If God's rest is still ongoing, and the "seventh day" is his rest as the author of Hebrews says, then this means that the seventh day is still ongoing.

God's resting and God's rest are two different things here, however. God rested on the seventh day (restricted to that day), but they will never enter His rest (lit. [His] resting place, NETBible tn on Ps. 98:11, where this quote comes from).

This'll have to be all for now. I need to catch a plane. I'll get back to you as soon as I can on the second part of your reply.

v/r,

OBP

[Socrates]

:squish: :float:

[OracleofTroy]

11-26-2003 @ 09:01 PM post located here
BrianB:

Re: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...547#post317547

In my view, this seems very shaky. First, we now have a five-day creation event.

Why do you think there's a five-day creation event?

Perhaps I should explicitly say, six narrative days, five literal days. Your paper indicates that the Hebrew reader would have seen a temporal overlay at day four indicating that he should read the events of that day as a continuation of the events of narrative day one.

I do understand why you would consider that my motivation, and I know that telling you "really, that's not it" won't matter, but that goes to the issue of motivation versus argument. _Even if_ my motivation were that way, it wouldn't challenge the situation that I've sufficiently (at least for me and a few others) established dischronologization based on good arguments and referencing solid scholarship. (Unless you don't consider Buth a scholar, or his work credible) It is, of course, your prerogative to assume that as the primary motive, but you'll have to also realize that carries absolutely zero argumentative value.

I have no doubt that people have put a lot of research and scholarship into FI; however, I do not believe that their conclusion is correct. I do realize that this carries absolutely zero argumentative value, in fact, I am very careful to make sure it does. I have nowhere near the knowledge of ancient Hebrew language or culture to make any sort of authoritative argument, I have only my 21st century translation interpreted though a 21st century culture.

However, if that were one's underlying motive for FI, I think you can see how one would tend to favor good arguments and solid scholarship that supported FI rather than good arguments and solid scholarship that didn't. It was this motivation that lead me to take a more passive stance about Genesis 1 until recently.

Right, I would have guessed #1, and at this point it becomes a matter of presupposing that the FI can't be true because the narrative is written as a sequence, and therefore I wouldn't be able to convince you even in principle.
...
#1 I consider a respectable (though completely wrongheaded, of course) position

I can buy that dischronologization is possible, in fact, I felt your Judges example to be very enlightening. However, I do not think it is possible in Genesis 1.

I will say that I think the FI is far more plausible than day-age, I just don't feel it is the best explanation.

I'm glad you've found it enlightening, and hopefully someday you'll convert. *big grin*

Perhaps. Don't hold your breath, it won't be anytime soon. Though it's only been within the last few months that I was willing to take a definitive 24h day stance. I will look into FI more, (eventually...when I have time... ).

[Ted]

Finally, after almost three weeks, I am able to return to the fray. In my absence, several able voices spoke up, of whom I particularly note R M Williams, Jr. and One Bad Pig. In reading some of the posts, I thought that these gentlemen were reading my mind.

There are a couple of items that, while perhaps old, bear revisitation. First is the issue of dischronologization. There is no doubt that there are areas of scripture where the stories are not told in chronological order. Some have been listed already. I do not dispute this. For example, if we look at the Synoptic gospels, it is commonly held that the stories in them are arranged in generally topical order. This does not affect their truth. But of particular note, there is no attempt in these gospels to present them as sequential. Thus, dischronologization has no bearing on them.

On the other hand, the creation account of Gen 1:1-2:3 is explicitly sequential in its presentation. If one wishes to argue that it is dischronologized, then a necessary consequence of that position is the implication that the presentation is false in its sequence. There is no way out of this. And that is why I said that making the story into “myth” (i.e. less than fully factual) casts doubt on the truth of scripture and by necessary extension, on the value of the cross. After all, the Bible represents itself as the word of God (2 Tim 3:16) who cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and does not change (Mal 3:6). If it is false in the creation account, as the FI requires, then we cannot rely on any part of it, because we have God lying to us in one part.

But let me put the question differently. To semi-quote one other writer in this thread, “If the writer of the creation account wanted to say that it was a true story, what means could he have used to make it clear that aren’t already in the story?” Until a cogent answer to this is made, the FI must be rejected, since historical-grammatical interpretation requires that we read the genre of history as true history. And the creation account is presented as true history.

The second item is my objection to the “Two-Triadic” structure of the story. It’s not that there aren’t two matching triads. There are. The problem is that that is an artificial truncation of the story. It cuts off the prolog and epilog, which are the elements that provide the structure to the poem and complete it. This poetic structure is another element that shows that the story is intended to be true. Also, since the Sabbath is the completion of creation (cf. Mark 2:27-28), it is the memorial of creation (Gen 2:3, Exod 20:11) established at creation. By truncating the story to simply two triads, the Sabbath gets ignored or has its rationale destroyed.

[One Bad Pig]

11-27-2003 @ 12:09 AM post located here
BrianB:

Re: the bottom half of
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...297#post311297

Continuing on from the last post to One Bad Pig...

I see no problem with the thematic arrangement, just your interpretation of it. Why couldn't God have chosen to perform similar actions on Days 1/4 and 2/5 and 3/6? The thematic arrangement wouldn't provide any problems for the 24-hour interpretation (or the Day-Age, for that matter).

1. God could have had Moses describe the same events under the different days of 2/5 and 3/6. However, the only one we have data for that suggests he did is on the Days 1/4 combo. The FI doesn't rule out the same for the other two, but neither does it teach it.

I don't see a valid reason for combining any of them, is all. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, once we figure out what it is we disagree about.

2. It's true that one can accept that the FI is the best interpretation of the Genesis text, and still hold YEC or OEC views. However, no longer can the Genesis creation text be appealed to support those arguments. The support would have to come from another source.

Isn't that being a little unfair? Genesis 1 is the main support for YEC, AFAIK.

In Psalm 50:10, God says he owns the cattle on a thousand hills. Now, it's entirely possible that at the time the Psalmist spoke there were exactly 1000 hills on the earth on which cattle were standing, and therefore God owned the cattle on exactly 1000 hills, but the evidence for such a belief would have to come from somewhere outside the text of Psalm 50:10 because it's already been identified as a literary device in that text. The burden of proof is squarely on the one who wants both a metaphorical usage _and_ to have it mean something 'straightforward'.

In context, Psalm 50:10 is shown to be metaphorical. It is embedded in a passage that repeats the concept that God owns everything. Genesis 1, however, has multiple indicators that it should by taken in a straightforward manner. I consider the YEC position to by a straightforward interpretation of the passage. Many passages are contextually open to interpretation. These two, however, are contextually well-grounded. I believe that the burden of proof is sqarely on you, because you're trying to insert a metaphorical interpretation of Days 1 and 4 into an otherwise straightforward passage.

2. The evidence that Day 4 is a return to the events of Day 1 and describes in more detail how God separated the light from the darkness.

The evidence shows a thematic similarity between Days 1 and 4. Your interpretation advocates the FI position. There is a difference.

Not the argument of the paper.

The paper, IMHO, improperly equated interpretation with evidence in this instance. I was pointing this out in response to your list of conclusions.

3. The principle of continuity, showing that God established the ordinary means of sustaining a creation before he created it.

"I think that God should have worked this way, so I'll ignore the plain meaning of the text in favor of my own interpretation." Sarcasm Great exegesis. /Sarcasm

Not the argument of the paper.

I apologize for being this harsh. I couldn't equate this statement with any specific argument in the paper. You'll want to clear this up. Creation itself is an inherently discontinuous process -- the abrupt existence of something that wasn't there before.

I'm holding on to my arguments because I think they make sense and can defend them, and I've seen nothing to change my mind so far. I wouldn't consider that dogmatism.

Fair enough, I suppose. I guess I expected you to be a little more tentative in you reasoning -- "I think this argument might be right; somebody play devil's advocate and try to poke holes" vs. "This is TRVTH".

Oh, so THAT's why you haven't responded to Soc's posts. How droll. I don't always agree with Soc's methods, but he does provide substantive arguments in many cases. He does get into shouting matches sometimes. (In case it isn't obvious, I'm ping Soc here.)

I've already publicly distanced myself from that member in a post/thread that was posted and deleted a while ago. * edited by a moderator * If you consider that 'droll' then so be it.

The "droll" was sarcasm. Socrates made some arguments that I considered to be cogent, and you ignored them (with the exception of a snide remark to Sanity). I thought that was rather petty and unfair.

I want to be clear here that, though we are disagreeing a lot, I find you to be a respectable conversation partner, so please don't think that I associate you (or other YECs here) with his kind. I hope you think the same of me, even if you disagree with my choice to ignore him.

Regards,
Brian the Useful Idiot

You're being unduly harsh on yourself. You're certainly not an idiot. Useful? About as useful as I am. Thanks for putting up with my occasional crassness. My moniker fits sometimes, doesn't it?

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...883#post325883

Hi again OOT. I think there may be some further misunderstanding here that we need to work through.

Perhaps I should explicitly say, six narrative days, five literal days. Your paper indicates that the Hebrew reader would have seen a temporal overlay at day four indicating that he should read the events of that day as a continuation of the events of narrative day one.

But why do you think there are five literal days? Perhaps I haven't made it clear enough that what the narrative days refer to are not just normal-solar-days-in-some-other-order, but unspecified durations. Really, I don't even think Moses' audience would have been thinking anything about time durations when they heard this text. They would have understood that it was saying that God had created all things things for these purposes without much (if any) regard to 'when' it happened.

Oh, and the temporal overlay shows that Days 1 and 4 are describing the same thing, not that Day 4 is a continuation of Day 1.

It could have been like this:

Narrative Day
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Order of events in reality
A B C A D E F

Narrative Day 4 could have been a jump-back to Narrative Day 1 (each describing something not specifically any length of time) and then the events of Narrative Day 5 continued in sequence after the events of Narrative Day 3.

Does that help?

I have no doubt that people have put a lot of research and scholarship into FI; however, I do not believe that their conclusion is correct. I do realize that this carries absolutely zero argumentative value, in fact, I am very careful to make sure it does. I have nowhere near the knowledge of ancient Hebrew language or culture to make any sort of authoritative argument, I have only my 21st century translation interpreted though a 21st century culture.

Oh, but you are able to evaluate arguments, which certainly qualifies you to make a judgment.

However, if that were one's underlying motive for FI, I think you can see how one would tend to favor good arguments and solid scholarship that supported FI rather than good arguments and solid scholarship that didn't. It was this motivation that lead me to take a more passive stance about Genesis 1 until recently.

But to be honest I have not seen any good arguments or solid scholarship that actually supports the other views over the Framework Interpretation.

It's good that we understand each other and what our assumptions are. You feel that the 'straightforward' chronological narrative rules out any possibility of dischronologization. I understand where you're coming from, but I can't agree especially since I haven't seen anything to persuade me of the plausibility of taking such a firm stance on only that.

Now I just have to convince you that even the 'straightforward' reading favors the Framework Interpretation, eh?

Thanks again OOT, I much appreciate your comments,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...056#post328056


Welcome back Ted

I will quote and respond only to those parts I think it necessary to.

On the other hand, the creation account of Gen 1:1-2:3 is explicitly sequential in its presentation.

I completely agree. The narrative is structured sequentially. If you want to argue that this precludes dischronologization, go for it, but so far you've only asserted it.

If one wishes to argue that it is dischronologized, then a necessary consequence of that position is the implication that the presentation is false in its sequence. There is no way out of this.

I agree that it's false to make the jump from the narrative sequence to the idea that "it happened in this sequence in reality." That's the entire point of the Framework Interpretation.

And that is why I said that making the story into “myth” (i.e. less than fully factual) casts doubt on the truth of scripture and by necessary extension, on the value of the cross.

Evidence please.

But let me put the question differently. To semi-quote one other writer in this thread, “If the writer of the creation account wanted to say that it was a true story, what means could he have used to make it clear that aren’t already in the story?” Until a cogent answer to this is made, the FI must be rejected, since historical-grammatical interpretation requires that we read the genre of history as true history. And the creation account is presented as true history.

Since the FI reads it in the genre of history, I agree with you and see no objection here.

The second item is my objection to the “Two-Triadic” structure of the story. It’s not that there aren’t two matching triads. There are. The problem is that that is an artificial truncation of the story. It cuts off the prolog and epilog, which are the elements that provide the structure to the poem and complete it.

Since the FI doesn't truncate anything I see no objection here. The 7th day and prologue are very much a part of the text. However, the 'two-triadic' part of my paper focuses on the 6 days since that's what is in the two triads.

This poetic structure is another element that shows that the story is intended to be true. Also, since the Sabbath is the completion of creation (cf. Mark 2:27-28), it is the memorial of creation (Gen 2:3, Exod 20:11) established at creation. By truncating the story to simply two triads, the Sabbath gets ignored or has its rationale destroyed.

You might want to check with some other YECs on the nature of poetry and whether or not seeing the Genesis 1 text as poetry would help your particular interpretation. Trust me, it wouldn't.

And the FI takes the text to be true as well.


Basically, you still have a LONG way to go if you're going to contend that IF the Genesis text is intended to be dischronologized, then it's "less than true."

Thanks again,
Brian

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...308#post320308

For OBP, part 1

Statement A, with a slight modification: If there are no qualifying time markers, then dischronologization is possible, but if there are progressive markers such as found in Genesis 1, then dischronologization is not possible. [The caveat is for the gospel accounts, e.g. Jesus doing something on 'the Sabbath'] I also hold that any attempt to dischronologize a chronologically delineated account is eisegesis.

Ok, so you rule out the possibility of my position in advance. I understand where you're coming from, but again it's begging the question for your position against mine, and so I cannot take it seriously as having any argumentative value against the Framework Interpretation. This seems to be exactly the same case as for OracleOfTroy who sees the 'straightfoward' reading ruling out anything else.

Okay. Your hangup is that you can't conceive of a 24-hour period defined by anything other than the sun in the ANE. Fair enough? I agree that no-one in the ANE could have possibly come up with the creation account in the Bible on their own. As Safarti pointed out in his article, that's one reason the account is believable.

The Jews would have defined the day by the rising of the Sun. What you want to do with using this text as evidence for its believability is absurd. It's like if a conversation went like this:

Joe: Psalm 177 verse 3 teaches that the speed of light is always constant regardless of observer, thus special relativity

Ted: What are you talking about? There's no way it teaches that. The idea that light even has speed, much less that it's constant and that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer would have been utterly inconceivable to them!

Joe: Exactly, which is a great proof for the reliability of the Bible!


Sorry, but if you're going to use a text to establish biblical reliability, you can't use a particular interpretation's inconceivable-ness as an argument for that interpretation itself. You have to establish the interpretation on grounds _other_ than 'because it was inconceivable.' If you can actually do that, then you would be able to use it as evidence.

You basically commit the Fallacy of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief. "X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences".

Unfortunately for your position, if an interpretation leads to the people needing to resort to something so absurd to them, this is an excellent indication that the interpretation is wrong. It's called a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument.

This, I think, is the crux of our differences. I disagree that the first three days are necessarily abnormal at all from an 'in the trenches' POV. At dawn, a light source appeared. At nightfall, it disappeared; hence, morning and evening, about 12 hours apart (assuming a near-equatorial POV).

*laugh* I thought I'd get some real stretches in attempts to answer this argument, but I didn't think anyone would go so far as to say that the first three days weren't abnormal. A 'normal' day without the sun to them? Please. I've again tried to be as generous as I can, but this is just silly. I'm not trying to be offensive, but when your answer is patently absurd there's really no way to respond other than "I'm perfectly content with my argument." As I've said before, I don't think I'll convert you. It takes a lot more than just a superior argument to do that, especially when you beg-the-question for your interpretation based on the sequential structure of the narrative.

God's resting and God's rest are two different things here, however.

Again, I'm perfectly content to leave this as it is, obviously stretching in order to try and save your interpretation. You are free to disagree as usual. :)

I'll get back to part B later today.

Regards,
Brian

[Ted]

I completely agree. The narrative is structured sequentially. If you want to argue that this precludes dischronologization, go for it, but so far you've only asserted it.

Syllogisms you want? Syllogisms you get!

Major Premise: A “dischronologized” account is presented in something other than the sequence of actual events. That is, in order to become “dischronologized,” at least one element of the account must be removed from its actual position in time. (The purpose of dischronologization is not at issue, although it commonly suits some thematic purpose.)
Minor Premise: The Creation account is presented in an explicit sequence that is both chronological and sequential.
Conclusion: The Creation account is not dischronologized.

Discussion: The Major Premise is definitional, and not subject to argument. Thus, if the minor premise is true, the conclusion must be true. In order to conclude that the Creation account is dischronologized, the minor premise must be shown to be false. The burden of proof necessarily falls on the one asserting the falsity of the minor premise.

Argument Regarding the Minor Premise: (Please note, this will necessarily be a rehash of other arguments.)
The Creation account is presented in language that numerous “authorities” have noted to be straight-forward history. The usual comment goes like this, “If we didn’t know better, we would have to conclude that the Bible is saying that the earth and life were created in six ordinary days.” This language is demonstrated in several ways.

1: Toledoth structure. The Creation account terminated with a toledoth in Gen 2:4. This is a colophon, referring to the preceding account, based on the fact that it refers to the creation of heavens and earth, elements of the preceding account. If it is argued to be a byline at the beginning of the succeeding account, it would be necessary to show creation of heavens and earth in Genesis 2, but those elements are absent in Genesis 2. Therefore, it is a colophon, referring to Genesis 1:2-2:3. Further, toledoth is a technical word implying an official eyewitness family history. Such histories are literally true.

2: “Evenings.” Days 1-6 are all linked to evenings. In every other case in scripture, where a day is linked with an evening, it is an ordinary day. Proper hermeneutics require that when there are no exceptions to a rule in the rest of scripture, there has to be an overwhelming reason to deviate from it in the exegesis of a single remaining passage. No such reason has been shown.

3: “Mornings.” Days 1-6 are all linked to mornings. In every other case in scripture, where a day is linked with an morning, it is an ordinary day. Proper hermeneutics require that when there are no exceptions to a rule in the rest of scripture, there has to be an overwhelming reason to deviate from it in the exegesis of a single remaining passage. No such reason has been shown.

4: Ordinal numbers. In every other case in scripture where an ordinal number is attached to a day (either day of the week, month, or year), it is an ordinary day. Proper hermeneutics require that when there are no exceptions to a rule in the rest of scripture, there has to be an overwhelming reason to deviate from it in the exegesis of a single remaining passage. No such reason has been shown.

5: Poetic Structure. It has been shown that Genesis 1:1-2:3 is a poem, with 1:1-2 the prolog, and 2:1-3 the epilog, with 1-4, 2-5, and 3-6 rhyming pairs. Scriptural poetry is written to emphasize the truth of its contents. While it may use figurative language, the emphasis remains on the truth of it. Thus, the Creation account is emphasized as TRUE.

The major elements of the Creation account virtually scream to us that it is written as a simple, factual account of the story of creation. Thus, it is explicitly chronological, based both on the sequence of the text and the use of ordinal numbers. Further, the use of “evening/morning/number/day” is a compound emphasis on the ordinary and sequential nature of the days. Finally, the toledoth and poetic structure re-emphasize that the account is true.

Nowhere in the discussion in this thread has a legitimate argument been raised that we should ignore good hermeneutics that point to seven ordinary sequential days as the time and sequence of creation. We have heard it argued that yom can mean something other than an ordinary day. This is true, but not when linked with “evening/morning/number.” Such an argument is flawed, because it ignores the way the word is used in the rest of scripture. If that evidence were considered, the FI would be rejected out of hand.

In side conversations with other participants, we have concluded that BrianB’s difficulty with taking Genesis 1 as literal history flows from the absence of the sun until day 4. I can add fuel to his fire by noting that ereb “evening” to begin day 1 seems impossible without light, since the common definition of the word (BDB) is the time of the setting of the sun. But recognizing that Hebrew words often have extended meanings, a further exploration in BDB shows this same root referring to blackness. Thus, it is possible that the intended meaning of way ereb way boqer is “there was darkness, there was daylight.”

Having dealt with that difficulty, we are left with daylight without sun. The various cosmological arguments would be lost on the ancient Hebrews. They knew the day by darkness and light. And Genesis 1:14-18 provide us with clues to resolve BrianB’s dilemma. Verse 14 says, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night...” The language of the first three days clearly includes daytime and nighttime. Thus, the writer of the account could not miss the fact that this addition of the sun, etc. was to supplant a prior method of separating daytime and nighttime. (It is also notable that in verse 14, a different use of yom is present. Here the “day’ is the light portion, since there is no evening/morning/number to identify it as a 24-hour segment.)

Put bluntly, the account clearly admits that the daylight of days 1-3 came from a source other than the sun. That source is not identified, nor does it need to be. God could provide that daylight (see day 1!) in any way he chose. And I pointed out that Revelation, drawing from the books of Moses, identifies one easy analogy, His divine presence. Scripture clearly allows this, and only a pre-supposition in the FI requires anything different. Therefore, we should accept the scriptural answer. The Creation account is a true history of an ordinary week in which extraordinary things took place.

Somewhat false:
Having shown (again) that there is no scriptural reason to take the Creation account as anything other than literal history, I now move to the issue of the implications of the FI. (Which I discussed before.)

The FI clearly takes the literal week of creation and makes it something else. By dischronologizing, it takes seven true days and makes at least one of them “not true.” That is, the FI forces it to be something different than the text declares it to be. The common element seen has been a recombination of days 1 and 4 to get the sun into place on day 1 to allow for days in the modern mind. This means that the sun was not created on day 4. Therefore, the account of day 4 is false in the FI.

Let me reiterate this. In the FI, as discussed in this thread, day 4 of Genesis 1 is false. We know that Genesis is part of the sacred writings (2 Tim 3:15-16). Jesus referred to them in numerous places, and specifically relies on the truth of the creation account in Mark 2:27-28. (Other cites could be made.) Thus, the Savior declares that the Genesis account is TRUE. But in the FI, it is not true. This means that Jesus was relying on a lie. If he was truly the incarnation of God, then he would have known it to be a lie, and was therefore lying to us. Since lying is sin, Jesus was not a sinless sacrifice on the cross, and had no ability to save us by his death.

A host of other parallel arguments could be made, but the essence is this. Either we can rely on the absolute truth of all of scripture as originally recorded, or we can rely on none of it. Once a witness has been impeached, he has no credibility. The FI tries to impeach God.

[One Bad Pig]

Yesterday @ 02:48 PM post located here
BrianB:

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...308#post320308

For OBP, part 1

Statement A, with a slight modification: If there are no qualifying time markers, then dischronologization is possible, but if there are progressive markers such as found in Genesis 1, then dischronologization is not possible. [The caveat is for the gospel accounts, e.g. Jesus doing something on 'the Sabbath'] I also hold that any attempt to dischronologize a chronologically delineated account is eisegesis.

Ok, so you rule out the possibility of my position in advance. I understand where you're coming from, but again it's begging the question for your position against mine, and so I cannot take it seriously as having any argumentative value against the Framework Interpretation. This seems to be exactly the same case as for OracleOfTroy who sees the 'straightfoward' reading ruling out anything else.

Pretty much so, I'm afraid. I don't consider it to be begging the question, however. Within the context of the passage, there is nothing to warrant anything other than a straightforward reading except something you consider impossible, nay, ludicrous; to wit, the concept of 'day' before 'sun'. God is not limited to human understanding. If God says that He created light and the separation thereof from darkness before He created the sun, I'll believe Him. Nothing in His nature prevents Him from doing that. If you can find a scripturally sound reason why God could not have operated that way, I'll convert to your viewpoint post haste. Until then, I'll remain sceptical.

The Jews would have defined the day by the rising of the Sun. What you want to do with using this text as evidence for its believability is absurd.

You're being unfairly precise here. The ancient Hebrew language didn't have all that many words. There was no reason for them to invent a word for the concept of "evening to morning to evening again" without the sun present. I know you'll think I'm unfairly broadening the semantic field, here, but some days the sun isn't visible at all due to unbroken cloud cover. How do you think the Hebrews defined those days?

Sorry, but if you're going to use a text to establish biblical reliability, you can't use a particular interpretation's inconceivable-ness as an argument for that interpretation itself. You have to establish the interpretation on grounds _other_ than 'because it was inconceivable.' If you can actually do that, then you would be able to use it as evidence.

Right back atcha.

You basically commit the Fallacy of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief. "X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences".

Nope. I'm going with the simplest explanation. When that works, it's automatically preferred over any other explanation.

Unfortunately for your position, if an interpretation leads to the people needing to resort to something so absurd to them, this is an excellent indication that the interpretation is wrong. It's called a 'reductio ad absurdum' argument.

Not so much absurd, but "I would've never thought of that!"

*laugh* I thought I'd get some real stretches in attempts to answer this argument, but I didn't think anyone would go so far as to say that the first three days weren't abnormal.

As I said above:

a) Hebrew just wasn't that precise.
b) With God, nothing is impossible unless it contradicts His attributes.

God's resting and God's rest are two different things here, however. God rested on the seventh day (restricted to that day), but they will never enter His rest (lit. [His] resting place, NETBible tn on Ps. 98:11, where this quote comes from).

Again, I'm perfectly content to leave this as it is, obviously stretching in order to try and save your interpretation. You are free to disagree as usual. :)

Okay, I'll try to spell this out a little more clearly.

From the NETBible notes on Gen. 2:2

The Hebrew term tbv (sabat) can be translated “to rest” (“and he rested”) but it basically means “to cease.” This is not a rest from exhaustion; it is the cessation of the work of creation.

God rested/ceased creating. This does not take time to carry out; it is more of a timestamp. "On this day, stamp, I stopped working."

God's resting place, on the other hand, has no time marker at all, implying permanence. The concept extends infinitely to the past and future.

The concepts look closer in English than they really are. I really don't see how a long, but finite (or infinite), period of time can be assigned to the seventh day based on the text of Hebrews 4. I went back to the original quotations used in Heb. 4, just like the ancients would have (e.g., the Bereans in Acts).

I'll get back to part B later...]

I look forward to reading your response. This dialogue has really helped me to critically examine my position, as well as yours. Thanks!

[BrianB]

Re:
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...286#post329286

Heya OBP,

1. God could have had Moses describe the same events under the different days of 2/5 and 3/6. However, the only one we have data for that suggests he did is on the Days 1/4 combo. The FI doesn't rule out the same for the other two, but neither does it teach it.

I don't see a valid reason for combining any of them, is all. I think we'll have to agree to disagree, once we figure out what it is we disagree about.

Yeah, for some reason I don't think we disagree on much here. There's no reason for combining (in the temporal sense) Days 2/5 and 3/6, but the paper gives ample reason for combining Days 1/4, showing dischronologization.

2. It's true that one can accept that the FI is the best interpretation of the Genesis text, and still hold YEC or OEC views. However, no longer can the Genesis creation text be appealed to support those arguments. The support would have to come from another source.

Isn't that being a little unfair? Genesis 1 is the main support for YEC, AFAIK.

'Unfair' is not the right word to characterize it.

Joe: At the time the Psalmist wrote, there were cattle on exactly 1000 hills.

Ted: Really? Where's your evidence for that?

Joe: Psalm 50:10

Ted: But that its metaphorical, and here are the reasons....
If you want to claim that there were cattle on exactly 1000 hills, you're free to do so, but you'll have to look elsewhere for your interpretation.

Joe: But that's not fair. Psalm 50:10 was my main support!


OBP, It's simply a matter of how language works. The whole point is that if the FI is the right interpretation, the YEC (24-hour) interpretation _of that passage_ is not correct, and so it cannot appeal to it for support.

In context, Psalm 50:10 is shown to be metaphorical. It is embedded in a passage that repeats the concept that God owns everything. Genesis 1, however, has multiple indicators that it should by taken in a straightforward manner. I consider the YEC position to by a straightforward interpretation of the passage. Many passages are contextually open to interpretation. These two, however, are contextually well-grounded. I believe that the burden of proof is sqarely on you, because you're trying to insert a metaphorical interpretation of Days 1 and 4 into an otherwise straightforward passage.

Again, you're doing what you've already said you do, and that's beg-the-question against my metaphorical interpretation. There's nothing of argumentative value here.

The paper, IMHO, improperly equated interpretation with evidence in this instance. I was pointing this out in response to your list of conclusions.

Since the only evidence we have is interpretations of the text, I don't see what you're getting at unless you're essentially saying "you haven't convinced me." But of course we already knew that. ;)

Creation itself is an inherently discontinuous process -- the abrupt existence of something that wasn't there before.

Evidence please!

The "droll" was sarcasm. Socrates made some arguments that I considered to be cogent, and you ignored them (with the exception of a snide remark to Sanity). I thought that was rather petty and unfair.

You can think what you like. Fortunately, it's still my choice.

And I don't remember making a snide remark to Sanity. I thought Sanity was perfectly respectful in our discussions. If something came across as snide it certainly wasn't intended.


OBP, I think we've gotten to a standstill, and it's the same standstill that OOT and I reached. Your assumption that the chronological narrative structure rules out the possibility of the Framework Interpretation conflicts with my openness to the possibility (and belief after examining the evidence) that it doesn't rule it out. The only way we could make further progress is if:

A. You were to convince me that the Genesis 1 narrative sequence rules out even the possibility of the Framework Interpretation.

or

B. I were to convince you that the Genesis 1 narrative sequence does not rule out the possibility of the Framework Interpretation.

If there are more points you'd like to bring up, I'm willing to listen, but if we keep running into the same roadblock assumptions, then I'm afraid we'll go nowhere.

And don't worry about the 'crassness.' We all do it from time to time when we get frustrated because think other people are missing the obvious, which we both do of course. I mean, just look at how you miss the obviousness of the FI.

*big grin*

Regards,
Brian