Historical accuracy of the Creation Account

[rogue06]

Which translation are you using? The NIV only says that childbirth will bring severe pain, nothing about it being increased. Also the argument isn't necessarily no pain, but no death of nephesh animals(which would essentially be all vertebrate life, and not things like plants or individual cells).

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.

Even if it really does mean increased pain, that's still not what the argument is about anyway.

According to this on-line parallel Bible:

NIV:
To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Darby:
To the woman he said, I will greatly increase thy travail and thy pregnancy; with pain thou shalt bear children; and to thy husband shall be thy desire, and he shall rule over thee.

And these are supported by the ESV, NASV, KJV, ASV, ERV, Douay-Rheims, WBT (if you "multiply" nothing you still have nothing):

To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children: and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Young's Literal Translation puts it thusly:

Unto the woman He said, 'Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband is thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.'

The Complete Jewish Bible (not included in the parallel Bible listed above) states it this way:

To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your pain in childbirth. You will bring forth children in pain. Your desire will be toward your husband, but he will rule over you.”

[JimboJSR]

Boys! BOYS! Why is there an informed, on-topic, evidence-based discussion going on? This thread is strictly for Pre-Cambrian, and he sure ain't gonna fit in wherever there are informed, on-topic, evidence-based discussions! Now can we please get back to some inane, rambling, completely contrived monologues?

Thankyou.

[technomage]

Why is there an informed, on-topic, evidence-based discussion going on?

Sowwy.

[Raphael]

Boys! BOYS! Why is there an informed, on-topic, evidence-based discussion going on? This thread is strictly for Pre-Cambrian, and he sure ain't gonna fit in wherever there are informed, on-topic, evidence-based discussions! Now can we please get back to some inane, rambling, completely contrived monologues?

Thankyou.

I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries

[ApologiaPhoenix]

No, I am not a Hebrew scholar, but I have been looking at various views on Genesis, and so far it seems that most Hebrew scholars agree that Genesis is of historical narrative, even those who don't believe that Genesis is accurate in portraying history. James Barr for instance would fit into the latter category. R.C. Sproul now believes in YEC, and he is a Hebrew scholar AFAIK.

No. Sproul is not a Hebrew scholar nor is he someone I really take seriously.

Here are a few others. Dr Andrew Steinmann, Associate Professor of Theology and Hebrew at Concordia University in Illinois.
Dr Robert McCabe, Professor of Old Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI.
Dr Ting Wang, lecturer in biblical Hebrew at Stanford University.
Dr. Stephen Boyd has even done a comparison between Hebrew poetry, and historical narrative. he analyzed the verb frequencies, and this was his conclusion.

‘There is only one tenable view of its plain sense: God created everything in six literal days.’

This article was my source for the above information.
http://creation.com/is-genesis-poetr...us-not-history

And this just becomes my scholar trumps your scholar. Boyd's article I found unconvincing. Poetry can have accounts using words like "and" repeatedly in telling a story. You could tell a parable in Hebrew like that and it would not be a problem. All it shows is a sequence of events and that can happen even in the creation account. I also noted that Boyd started off with a genetic fallacy and well poisoning right at the start.

Ok, sounds fine to me.

No problem.

Yes, I have seen JPH's video, his site led me here to TWeb, and has been a great help to me on a different forum. As for evidence that they did move out that far, if I am right about a global flood, then what evidence would exist of this, and where would we expect to find it?

Since you know about JPH's video, you should respond to it. Why does it mean "world" in that passage instead of land. Also, you're asking me what evidence there would be if you are right? Well that's your position isn't it? You need to provide it. Further, that is a question of science and not of the text and for the science question, I'd go with someone like Rogue. You could also do some reading from Reasons To Believe. I think their concordist approach is wrong, but I do think they have some good science there.

Also, considering the long time period that the flood lasted, and that they landed at the mountains of Ararat, that much water would have been enormous, and would have been effectively global. I mean unless those mountains are far below sea level, and were in a bowl shaped area at the time. After all water does seek it's own level.

Once again, this is more a question for Rogue, but I would say Ararat is a short distance away so it seems more likely to me that the ark did not travel far because the waters could not take it far.

I haven't read a whole lot from people who advocate a local flood, but if you have some good free resources I would be happy to take a look at them. I am unable to read anything on a written page, and I have to stick to computer screens. It's probably just one more odd symptom of my RSD. Even if I could read off a written page, I don't have any money right now, and a library is out of the question due to my lowered immune system. So, anything you recommend would need to be some kind of webpage, or a something similar.

Go to Reasons.org. It's the work of Hugh Ross. Rogue might know someone better. There's also Answers in Creation.

And I think that it's meant to show God's nature by His actual actions concerning creation.

So we both think the account shows God's nature. Do you deny that my reading of the account can reveal to us the nature of God to an extent?

Do remember that we are dealing with God saying that it is very good, and His standards are quite a bit higher than ours.

Mark 10:18
“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone.

Now, it was certainly something that could be tainted, but other than that there would have been no problems of any kind.

It seems to me that if something can be tainted, there is a problem with it. I also agree with Rogue. The word for perfect is not used. If it was, it wouldn't make sense. All that was created was perfect. Then he created woman and it was very perfect. Something is either perfect or not. Does that mean creation was imperfect when God made it for awhile also since man was not alone? No. All it meant was good and good for the purpose God intended it for, and that I believe is to settle the battle between good and evil that God knew was coming. I think an interesting read would be Dembski's "The End of Christianity."

Yeah, they are Greco Roman biography right? I see Genesis 1-11 as historical narrative, and I haven't yet seen good evidence to the contrary, but I am certainly willing to look at anything you point me to.

I'd say finding something by Kline or Walton would help.

Who's joking? Mossiologists to this day still wonder first off where Mossy lived before the Earth was made and the far more puzzling question, why would she choose to live in Canada?

As for Psalm 104, it says the waters would never cover the Earth again. That's also the creation account when it was stated that dry land appeared on day 3. Rogue's understanding of a local flood is thus MORE consistent with the text then.

[jpholding]

Boys! BOYS! Why is there an informed, on-topic, evidence-based discussion going on? This thread is strictly for Pre-Cambrian, and he sure ain't gonna fit in wherever there are informed, on-topic, evidence-based discussions! Now can we please get back to some inane, rambling, completely contrived monologues?

Not likely. I suspect Lucretin and PreCrappian are off somewhere together doing something with their genitals.

[Cerebrum123]

No. Sproul is not a Hebrew scholar nor is he someone I really take seriously.



And this just becomes my scholar trumps your scholar. Boyd's article I found unconvincing. Poetry can have accounts using words like "and" repeatedly in telling a story. You could tell a parable in Hebrew like that and it would not be a problem. All it shows is a sequence of events and that can happen even in the creation account. I also noted that Boyd started off with a genetic fallacy and well poisoning right at the start.





No problem.







Since you know about JPH's video, you should respond to it. Why does it mean "world" in that passage instead of land. Also, you're asking me what evidence there would be if you are right? Well that's your position isn't it? You need to provide it. Further, that is a question of science and not of the text and for the science question, I'd go with someone like Rogue. You could also do some reading from Reasons To Believe. I think their concordist approach is wrong, but I do think they have some good science there.



Once again, this is more a question for Rogue, but I would say Ararat is a short distance away so it seems more likely to me that the ark did not travel far because the waters could not take it far.



Go to Reasons.org. It's the work of Hugh Ross. Rogue might know someone better. There's also Answers in Creation.







So we both think the account shows God's nature. Do you deny that my reading of the account can reveal to us the nature of God to an extent?





It seems to me that if something can be tainted, there is a problem with it. I also agree with Rogue. The word for perfect is not used. If it was, it wouldn't make sense. All that was created was perfect. Then he created woman and it was very perfect. Something is either perfect or not. Does that mean creation was imperfect when God made it for awhile also since man was not alone? No. All it meant was good and good for the purpose God intended it for, and that I believe is to settle the battle between good and evil that God knew was coming. I think an interesting read would be Dembski's "The End of Christianity."













I'd say finding something by Kline or Walton would help.









Who's joking? Mossiologists to this day still wonder first off where Mossy lived before the Earth was made and the far more puzzling question, why would she choose to live in Canada?

As for Psalm 104, it says the waters would never cover the Earth again. That's also the creation account when it was stated that dry land appeared on day 3. Rogue's understanding of a local flood is thus MORE consistent with the text then.

For now, I will look for the resources you mentioned, and then get back to you. It might take a while though.

[rogue06]

Sorry rogue, but your explanation doesn't work. Not only does Psalm 104 describe things like boats, but the Flood as well, and that kind of undermines the timetable you are trying to put forth. Also the animals are only talked about in such a way AFTER the Flood has been mentioned.

Every Bible commentary I’ve ever checked refers to Psalm 104 as the "Creation Psalm" for it presents a poem about the creation of the world. It describes the creation of the earth in essentially the same order as that seen in Genesis 1, although with a few details added. Verse 6 describes the earth as a planet completely covered with water (parallel to Gen 1:9). God then causes the dry land to appear (verses 7-8, parallel to Gen 1:9-10). It covers the creation of heaven and earth along with the separation of the waters and the earth.

I think it's fairly evident that Psalm 104 is clearly describing the creation, not the Flood. For instance, God is described as stretching out the heavens (v. 2) which has parallels in the creation accounts of Genesis but not the flood. It describes God as setting earth on its foundation (v. 5) which would fit into a description of the creation but not so much about the Flood.

If Psalm 104 were referring to Noah's Flood, there should be a reference somewhere to judgment, but there is none. Further, there is no reference to the world being destroyed. These are things one would expect to see (and does see) in virtually every other biblical passage that mentions the Flood.

Basically, Psalm 104 is a general praising of God and creation where any mention of the Flood would be off topic.

Moreover, the psalm states that the original waters of the earth (which initially covered the entire earth) would “never again cover the earth” (v.9). This would seem to eliminate a global flood since if the waters never again covered the entire earth, then Noah’s Flood could not have been worldwide and must be local.

Interestingly, while many YECs admit that the psalm is indeed describing the creation they also claim that Noah’s Flood was an exception to the part about the waters never flooding all the earth.

“A Commentary Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments,” by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown, Vol. 2, p.323

“The flood was a temporary exception, which, according to the sure word of God is never to be repeated.”

© source where applicable

That would mean that the psalm is just plain wrong – a seemingly strange claim indeed coming from those who vehemently claim that the Bible is inerrant and thus needs to be taken absolutely literally.

Further, there are several figures of speech used in Psalm 104 that unmistakably refers to the original creation as opposed to Noah's Flood. For example, the reference to the boundaries of the deep 9v. 9) is a clear reference to the original creation (Prov. 8:29; Ps. 33:6-7; Jer. 5:22; Job 38:8-11).

Take Jer. 5:22 for instance and how it repeats and reinforces this in its description of the taming of primeval chaos where we're told that God had “placed the sand as the bound for the sea, a perpetual bond for the sea, a perpetual barrier which it cannot pass; though the waves toss, they cannot prevail, though they roar, they cannot pass over it.” Note that there are no references to “boundaries” in any of the Flood references.

A second figure of speech can be seen in the concept of the earth being covered in a garment (v. 6) -- something only found in the creation passages and never in passages concerning the Flood (Prov 30:4; Job 38:9).

Finally, even if you accept the translation depicting the mountains rising and the valleys sinking (v. 8)*, there are no references to this taking place after the Flood, although these events could be linked to the setting of the boundaries of the sea as described in Gen 1 and Job 38.


Now as to the reference to things like ships in Ps. 104. This appears to be some sort of anachronism which shouldn't really be a surprise considering that the account is essentially poetic. IMHO, the psalmist appears to be saying that the sea is full of God’s creation as well as the Earth, and because it is under God’s control, ships may safely travel in it. Remember, the seas were often viewed as the stuff of pure chaos, and if not under God’s control, something that one could never venture upon. Further, I would point out that it doesn't say that God made the boats whereas it explicitly states that God provided the lions with "their prey."



* I think the versions that have the waters rising rather than the mountains is correct

[rogue06]

Not likely. I suspect Lucretin and PreCrappian are off somewhere together doing something with their genitals.

Alright folks, gather around. Free this time only:

tumblr_lrutxl1yCz1qfs5p7.jpg

[Cerebrum123]

Every Bible commentary I’ve ever checked refers to Psalm 104 as the "Creation Psalm" for it presents a poem about the creation of the world. It describes the creation of the earth in essentially the same order as that seen in Genesis 1, although with a few details added. Verse 6 describes the earth as a planet completely covered with water (parallel to Gen 1:9). God then causes the dry land to appear (verses 7-8, parallel to Gen 1:9-10). It covers the creation of heaven and earth along with the separation of the waters and the earth.

I think it's fairly evident that Psalm 104 is clearly describing the creation, not the Flood. For instance, God is described as stretching out the heavens (v. 2) which has parallels in the creation accounts of Genesis but not the flood. It describes God as setting earth on its foundation (v. 5) which would fit into a description of the creation but not so much about the Flood.

If Psalm 104 were referring to Noah's Flood, there should be a reference somewhere to judgment, but there is none. Further, there is no reference to the world being destroyed. These are things one would expect to see (and does see) in virtually every other biblical passage that mentions the Flood.

Basically, Psalm 104 is a general praising of God and creation where any mention of the Flood would be off topic.

Moreover, the psalm states that the original waters of the earth (which initially covered the entire earth) would “never again cover the earth” (v.9). This would seem to eliminate a global flood since if the waters never again covered the entire earth, then Noah’s Flood could not have been worldwide and must be local.

Interestingly, while many YECs admit that the psalm is indeed describing the creation they also claim that Noah’s Flood was an exception to the part about the waters never flooding all the earth.

“A Commentary Critical, Experimental, and Practical on the Old and New Testaments,” by Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset & David Brown, Vol. 2, p.323

“The flood was a temporary exception, which, according to the sure word of God is never to be repeated.”

© source where applicable

That would mean that the psalm is just plain wrong – a seemingly strange claim indeed coming from those who vehemently claim that the Bible is inerrant and thus needs to be taken absolutely literally.

Further, there are several figures of speech used in Psalm 104 that unmistakably refers to the original creation as opposed to Noah's Flood. For example, the reference to the boundaries of the deep 9v. 9) is a clear reference to the original creation (Prov. 8:29; Ps. 33:6-7; Jer. 5:22; Job 38:8-11).

Take Jer. 5:22 for instance and how it repeats and reinforces this in its description of the taming of primeval chaos where we're told that God had “placed the sand as the bound for the sea, a perpetual bond for the sea, a perpetual barrier which it cannot pass; though the waves toss, they cannot prevail, though they roar, they cannot pass over it.” Note that there are no references to “boundaries” in any of the Flood references.

A second figure of speech can be seen in the concept of the earth being covered in a garment (v. 6) -- something only found in the creation passages and never in passages concerning the Flood (Prov 30:4; Job 38:9).

Finally, even if you accept the translation depicting the mountains rising and the valleys sinking (v. 8)*, there are no references to this taking place after the Flood, although these events could be linked to the setting of the boundaries of the sea as described in Gen 1 and Job 38.


Now as to the reference to things like ships in Ps. 104. This appears to be some sort of anachronism which shouldn't really be a surprise considering that the account is essentially poetic. IMHO, the psalmist appears to be saying that the sea is full of God’s creation as well as the Earth, and because it is under God’s control, ships may safely travel in it. Remember, the seas were often viewed as the stuff of pure chaos, and if not under God’s control, something that one could never venture upon. Further, I would point out that it doesn't say that God made the boats whereas it explicitly states that God provided the lions with "their prey."



* I think the versions that have the waters rising rather than the mountains is correct

Actually the Psalm appears to be talking about history prior, and not only creation. The word boundary might not be mentioned in the Flood accounts, but this part certainly is.

Genesis 9: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth. ”

Also, as you point out, we have a POETIC account, and right now I still see Genesis 1-11 as historical narrative(I am going to look at the sources that AP provided, but haven't gotten to do so very much yet). So I still don't think it's a very good idea to be putting them together in the way that you are doing.

[fm93]

You're still missing the point. Who cares if it's stylistically similar in some areas to a historical narrative? The main message that the account would be trying to convey wouldn't have been about history or biology or cosmology, so even if the author personally believed that the world had been made in exactly six days or whatever, it's incorrect to say that the message is wrong.

[technomage]

I am not certain who you are speaking to, and I hope I am not missing the point of your response.

even if the author personally believed that the world had been made in exactly six days or whatever, it's incorrect to say that the message is wrong.

If I understand your response, I must disagree.

If the author of a passage makes the assertion "The earth was created in six days," and intends that assertion as an assertion of historical fact, then yes--the message is wrong.

[rogue06]

Actually the Psalm appears to be talking about history prior, and not only creation.

I don't see anything to support that contention.

The word boundary might not be mentioned in the Flood accounts, but this part certainly is.

Genesis 9: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be destroyed by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth. ”

I think you might be mixing apples and oranges here.

Also, as you point out, we have a POETIC account, and right now I still see Genesis 1-11 as historical narrative(I am going to look at the sources that AP provided, but haven't gotten to do so very much yet).

Not wanting to rehash the argument concerning parallelism and Hebrew poetry wrt the creation accounts but more than one credible Biblical scholar has found numerous poetic elements in those "historic narratives."

In addition, IMHO, the opening chapters of Genesis simply doesn't read like a documentary account. Contrast the style of prose with that of the Gospels which really can't be read in any other way than that of history. In comparison, the early part of Genesis reads more like a summary or recap.

[fm93]

I am not certain who you are speaking to, and I hope I am not missing the point of your response.



If I understand your response, I must disagree.

If the author of a passage makes the assertion "The earth was created in six days," and intends that assertion as an assertion of historical fact, then yes--the message is wrong.

I personally am of the opinion that the Genesis account is an etiological myth, so I'm unpersuaded that it was intended to be taken as a historical narrative. My response (which was to Cerebrum) was that even if the author was writing what he believed to be actual history, what he personally believed happened in biological and cosmological history isn't central to his overall message, which aims to convey points that are theological and spiritual in nature. The author's incorrect personal beliefs about the age of the Earth are irrelevant to and don't affect the theological, spiritual message.

[technomage]

I personally am of the opinion that the Genesis account is an etiological myth, so I'm unpersuaded that it was intended to be taken as a historical narrative. My response (which was to Cerebrum) was that even if the author was writing what he believed to be actual history, what he personally believed happened in biological and cosmological history isn't central to his overall message, which aims to convey points that are theological and spiritual in nature. The author's incorrect personal beliefs about the age of the Earth are irrelevant to and don't affect the theological, spiritual message.

Ah! I'm sorry, I did misunderstand your post (we largely agree).