Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Days of Proclamation: Historical Reading of Genesis 1

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by grmorton View Post
    Roy, that is so untrue. the editorial statements are literally true. Are you saying we don't have light?
    No, I'm not saying that. There's no way to construe what I wrote as saying that. Just because a statement doesn't have to be true doesn't mean it isn't true.

    Secondly, it is ridiculous to claim as your statement above would require, that God said "Let there be light and it was so" Why would God say 'and it was so"?
    My statement does not require that at all. I have no idea why you think it does, not least because I explicitly referred to your characterising the second part of this and other verses as "editorial statements," and not what God said.

    If some verses are editorial statements added by human authors, why do they have to be taken literally?

    Why have you ignored my objection that you have missed out all the verses about evenings and mornings? Even if you claim the editorial additions are literally true, you've still ignored a lot of the text in your analysis.
    Last edited by Roy; 06-07-2019, 03:44 PM.
    Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

    MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
    MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

    seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

    Comment


    • #17
      Hey grmorton, other posters are probably sick of me spamming about it, but are you at all familiar with the recently passed Old Testament scholar, John Sailhamer's, Historical Creationism view? He essentially posits that the creation narrative after Genesis 1:1 is in reference to the preparation of the Promised Land specifically. The view has attracted some attention over the years (John Piper is a fan), and I've seen a few writers tweak it a bit (I think Sailhamer's view on the creation of man can be tweaked). I could see it harmonized with your Proclamation view as well as John Walton's Cosmic Temple view as gone over in Walton's Lost World of Genesis series. And I believe even the view that rogue is espousing can be folded into all of this (most Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis is aware of and is replying to surrounding religious mythology). Prof. Sailhamer wrote about this in his book Genesis Unbound, but you can find a great summary of it on Piper's website here: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-promised-land

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
        but we legitimately draw the conclusion that animals can't and don't do such things? We do assess expressions and stance in humans to be meaningful and with some degree of accuracy (skill levels varying) - though people do mask or pretend, and sometimes cultural differences will have some influence.
        Some animals do have recognisable, and similar responses by the same animal to similar circumstances lead to a conclusion about those responses. Pigeons get embarrassed, have a particular stance when they are assessing things they don't understand, respond one way when they can resolve a dilemma, and another when they can't (flee).
        Oliver will walk up to me, open and close his beak three times, coo, and open and close his beak three times again. There's no mistaking what he is communicating. Casanova (carrier pigeon) approached a female turtle dove one time and did the pigeon "how about it" dance. The turtle dove assumed the "set to ram" stance. No mistaking her response, nor Casanova's embarrassed departure. One of 4 pigeons on three separate occasions that did the "I'm embarrassed" walk. Note these are feral, not domestic.
        And every piece of data you have is observational from prior experience. It isn't guess work about them thinking about eating ice cream or something more abstract.

        The penguin spent his days gazing at a picture - aside from eating and sleeping. First thing he did for the day was head for the picture's location. Beyond that I draw no conclusion - that he liked something about the picture is obvious. What is was is unknown - he didn't communicate that information.

        First off, all our higher consciousness functions take place in our neocortex. Birds don't have neocortex. Before you say they found neocortex like cells in dorsal ventricular ridge, that is some cells but it isn't a neocortex So I doubt that penguin is thinking that the picture is an image of his God. Besides, zoos are generally sterile places for animals and bizarre behavior results.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Roy View Post
          No, I'm not saying that. There's no way to construe what I wrote as saying that. Just because a statement doesn't have to be true doesn't mean it isn't true.

          My statement does not require that at all. I have no idea why you think it does, not least because I explicitly referred to your characterising the second part of this and other verses as "editorial statements," and not what God said.

          If some verses are editorial statements added by human authors, why do they have to be taken literally?

          Why have you ignored my objection that you have missed out all the verses about evenings and mornings? Even if you claim the editorial additions are literally true, you've still ignored a lot of the text in your analysis.

          I was responding to this: "Second, you've characterised one third of the text as editorial statements by the human author that don't have to be taken literally" And pointing out that 1/3 of the text doesn't have to be taken literally.

          Well, I will agree I am not taking evening and morning literally. but that isn't 1/3 of the text. It is hard to take them literally before the sun is made, so that part is a literary mechanism to indicate that there was some sort of separation between the proclamations.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            Hey grmorton, other posters are probably sick of me spamming about it, but are you at all familiar with the recently passed Old Testament scholar, John Sailhamer's, Historical Creationism view? He essentially posits that the creation narrative after Genesis 1:1 is in reference to the preparation of the Promised Land specifically. The view has attracted some attention over the years (John Piper is a fan), and I've seen a few writers tweak it a bit (I think Sailhamer's view on the creation of man can be tweaked). I could see it harmonized with your Proclamation view as well as John Walton's Cosmic Temple view as gone over in Walton's Lost World of Genesis series. And I believe even the view that rogue is espousing can be folded into all of this (most Old Testament scholars believe that Genesis is aware of and is replying to surrounding religious mythology). Prof. Sailhamer wrote about this in his book Genesis Unbound, but you can find a great summary of it on Piper's website here: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-promised-land
            I will look into it but views like you describe are kind of like me describing the weather and someone saying I was talking about fishing. It makes the words of Genesis 1 have no meaning at all, or a meaning so fluid as to be meaningless and whatever one wants them to say. Words have meaning. Eight times Genesis 1 uses the word 'created' and I am supposed to believe it means something about the promised land? Eight times it uses the word created, and some say it is to be saying that Jehovah is bigger than other gods, who also claim to have created the earth. doesn't make sense to me. Genesis 1 is a creation story--nothing more; nothing less.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by grmorton View Post
              I will look into it but views like you describe are kind of like me describing the weather and someone saying I was talking about fishing. It makes the words of Genesis 1 have no meaning at all, or a meaning so fluid as to be meaningless and whatever one wants them to say. Words have meaning. Eight times Genesis 1 uses the word 'created' and I am supposed to believe it means something about the promised land? Eight times it uses the word created, and some say it is to be saying that Jehovah is bigger than other gods, who also claim to have created the earth. doesn't make sense to me. Genesis 1 is a creation story--nothing more; nothing less.
              I think if you read the link, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that it's nothing at all like that. Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the word "created" is used 8 times in Genesis 1, but the actual Hebrew word for create, bara, is used only three times in the first chapter, in Genesis 1:1 (of the entire cosmos), 1:21 (of the tannin), and 1:27 (the image bearing man and woman).

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by grmorton View Post
                And every piece of data you have is observational from prior experience. It isn't guess work about them thinking about eating ice cream or something more abstract.




                First off, all our higher consciousness functions take place in our neocortex. Birds don't have neocortex. Before you say they found neocortex like cells in dorsal ventricular ridge, that is some cells but it isn't a neocortex So I doubt that penguin is thinking that the picture is an image of his God. Besides, zoos are generally sterile places for animals and bizarre behavior results.
                All I'm saying is that I have seen enough to make me wonder if conventional assessments might be lacking.
                1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                .
                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                Scripture before Tradition:
                but that won't prevent others from
                taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                of the right to call yourself Christian.

                ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  I think if you read the link, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that it's nothing at all like that. Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the word "created" is used 8 times in Genesis 1, but the actual Hebrew word for create, bara, is used only three times in the first chapter, in Genesis 1:1 (of the entire cosmos), 1:21 (of the tannin), and 1:27 (the image bearing man and woman).
                  I will read the link. I am curious but I was reviewing a book prepublication until just now.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                    All I'm saying is that I have seen enough to make me wonder if conventional assessments might be lacking.
                    That is always a possibility. If you find something substantive, I would love to hear of it.

                    Everyone has kinda picked around the edges of my post, which is what I had hoped for and so I am happy with my formulation. I had challenges on another list, and changed one guy's mind. lol See yall later.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      I think if you read the link, you'll be pleasantly surprised to find that it's nothing at all like that. Also, I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the word "created" is used 8 times in Genesis 1, but the actual Hebrew word for create, bara, is used only three times in the first chapter, in Genesis 1:1 (of the entire cosmos), 1:21 (of the tannin), and 1:27 (the image bearing man and woman).
                      Ok, I have read it and think it is a ridiculous idea with no Biblical or scientific support. I won't present any data in this thread because Sailhammer is off topic here.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by grmorton View Post
                        Ok, I have read it and think it is a ridiculous idea with no Biblical or scientific support. I won't present any data in this thread because Sailhammer is off topic here.
                        Wow! Not at all the reaction I was expecting. It's of course, Biblically supported, after all, Dr. Sailhamer was a one of the leading modern Old Testament scholars, proficient in ancient Hebrew, and a thorough knowledge of ancient Israel and the surrounding cultures. His book Genesis Unbound, of course goes into the Hebrew language, expressions, and cultural ideas being expressed a lot more thoroughly than the blog post I previously cited, but I thought that would have been enough to at least give an idea about the subject. And there is absolutely nothing in Historical Creationism that's at odds with the findings of modern science, barring the idea of the special creation of man and woman, which I think could have been adjusted had Dr. Sailhamer specified special creation of man and woman in God's own image (other Biblical scholars like Derek Kidner, and Tim Keller have tackled that topic). In fact, the very fact that it's not at odds with modern science or with scripture is what I find so powerful and interesting about it, and why I thought you too might find value in it. It's very strange that you came away with such a drastically different impression. Furthermore, Dr. Seth Postell, academic dean of Israel College of the Bible, and a PhD student of Dr. Sailhamer has been expanding on Sailhamer's work in this area with his book Adam as Israel. And Jon Garvey, a retired British physician and theologian who posts quite a bit on the Biologos forums, has, I've been told, working through Sailhamer's and Postell's writings on the subject as well, and showing how they synthesize with scientific views on human origins.

                        Oh well. If the matters closed to you, that's fine. Hopefully others will dig into it. I'm always open to exploring new views on the creation narrative.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I'll leave a link to Rodney Whitefield who, IMO, has a very good discussion on Genesis 1. Here's a summary from what he argues on one link.
                          Genesis One and the Age of the Earth: What does the Bible say?

                          Key Issues about the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1-31
                          (The Key Issues will be discussed later in detail.)

                          Key Issue 1: The Text and Interpretation of Genesis 1:1
                          The Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1 are ordered in the sequence that Biblical
                          Hebrew uses to indicate pluperfect action, i.e., expressed in English by verbs
                          using the word “had.”

                          Result: The Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 is properly translated as “had created,” the
                          English pluperfect tense. The consequence is that the creation described
                          in Genesis 1:1 is already completed, a “done deal.” See pages 10-13.

                          Key Issue 2: The Text and Interpretation of Genesis 1:2
                          The Hebrew words of Genesis 1:2 are also ordered in the sequence that
                          Biblical Hebrew usesto indicate pluperfect action, i.e., expressed in English
                          by verbs using the word “had.”

                          Result: The Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 is properly translated as “had existed,” “was
                          existing,” or “was” meaning “was already.” Genesis 1:2 describes the
                          state of planet Earth sometime after the creation of Genesis 1:1 but prior
                          to the start of the sequence of commands modifying the environment.
                          See pages 14-15.

                          Key Issue 3: When do Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 Happen?
                          Both Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 are completed before the "And God
                          said. . ." command of Genesis 1:3. The command "And God said. . ."
                          starts the first creative time period. Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 are not
                          included within the first creative time period.

                          Result: Genesis 1:1 first describes the creation and then Genesis 1:2 describes the
                          subsequent later condition of planet Earth before the first command of
                          Genesis 1:3. Genesis 1:3 is the first command in a sequence of actions
                          which modify the physical conditions and ecology of planet Earth.
                          See pages 16-17.

                          Key Issue 4: The “Young Earth” Argument about Genesis 1:1-2
                          Those advocating an Earth about 6,000 to 10,000 years old propose that
                          Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 are part of the first creative time period which
                          starts with Genesis 1:3.

                          Answer: This argument depends on the presence of the word “in” in Exodus 20:11.
                          The word “in” does not appear in the Hebrew of this verse. The word “in”
                          is a word added to the verse by the KJV translators and was italicized
                          to indicate that it had been added. The above argument also depends on
                          an asserted equivalency of the Hebrew words “bara” (create) and “asah”
                          (meaning do, or make). The writer of Genesis uses these two words in
                          Genesis 2:3 in a manner which contradicts the claim of equivalency.
                          See pages 18-19.

                          Key Issue 5: What About “Yom”? What Does “Yom” Mean?
                          Those advocating an Earth about 6,000 to 10,000 years old propose
                          that the Hebrew word “yom” refers to a 24-hour day when used in
                          Genesis 1:1-31, and therefore requires a 6,000 to 10,000 year old Earth.

                          Answer: This argument fails on many grounds. The word “yom” most commonly refers to the daytime. The second most common use of “yom” is
                          to refer to long periods of time. The argument also fails because the
                          universe and planet Earth are already in existence before the start of the
                          first creative time period. See Pages 26 - 29 for a more complete discussion of the word “yom.”
                          Other discussions by him can be found on the site: Reading Genesis 1.
                          -The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.
                          Sir James Jeans

                          -This most beautiful system (The Universe) could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.All variety of created objects which represent order and Life in the Universe could happen only by the willful reasoning of its original Creator, whom I call the Lord God.
                          Sir Isaac Newton

                          Comment

                          Related Threads

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                          48 responses
                          135 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post Sparko
                          by Sparko
                           
                          Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                          16 responses
                          74 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post shunyadragon  
                          Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                          6 responses
                          47 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post shunyadragon  
                          Working...
                          X