Intriguing Bible verses supporting YEC

[rogue06]

I read a few hours worth of geo stuff the other night, I must say I've been out of the loop on this! Interesting position.

I saw a "list" of some 60 or so versus "supporting" geo, but I wasn't impressed. Most of them are just versus saying "the sun rose" or the "sun set". But that doesn't mean anything, even cosmologists today will say " the sun sets in a few hours, we need to hurry". I mean, it's just the way we talk.

Such language of appearance is common and an acceptable explanation for many of those passages. The interesting one though is Ecclesiastes 1:5 which states: "The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises," (emphasis added by me) strongly implying that it is indeed the Sun which is the one doing the moving about.

As far as the commanding the sun to stand still, well, whether the sun stopped or earth or whatever, it was a miracle however you look at it, so what difference does it make?
The verse about "setting the world" unmoving or whatever, that can mean a lot of things.

So I'm just getting my feet wet.

The difference is in which one is moving. Joshua appears to be asking that the day be lengthened so that the Israelites could be victorious by asking that the movement of the Sun and Moon be halted. He could have just as easily asked for the Earth to stop turning – but he didn't. Further, in Isaiah 38:8 (cf, II Kings 20:9-11) it again appears as if it is the Sun that moves and God chose to move it backwards.

The real question here is why are you willing to accept that these verses that support the idea of geocenticism may be taken in a less than strict literal sense while still insisting that the verses that support a young earth must be read in a strict literal sense?

[Vigilante]

I think the geo issue as compared with the YEC issue are apples and oranges as regards to language, frankly.

To say the sun is rising or setting is extremely common language then even the smartest scientist will use. Somehow I doubt these Jews and Gentiles were trying to be THAT meticulous in their choice of words.
But as for creation, the language is not as ambiguous. Not only does it speak of a creation "day", but further qualifies it by using "evening and morning". Not only that but qualifies it again at the end by saying "on the seventh day" he rested. And there is not to much ambiguity when dealing with genealogies or dating the flood of Noah.

When saying "The sun rises, and the sun goes down...", this is what we observe, this is what it looks like. You don't observe the earth spinning or flying through space. If the first part of the sentence is observation, it follows that the second part "hastens" is just as simple. Why would he go from speaking about the sun in this simple way, to being more scientifically accurate after the comma?

Joshua asked for the sun and moon to stop, because while looking up at them, it appears they are the things moving, not us. I think it would be awkward for him to say "Lord! Halt the earth so I can have more light!"
When Jesus called Herod "that fox" I doubt he meant that Herod was a four legged red animal. Likewise I think the characters in the bible spoke about the sun and moon moving just the same as we still do today. Because it is simple language, everybody knows what we're talking about, and it makes sense.


On the other hand, if the universe WERE geocentric, the verses would make just as much sense!

Also, I am not changing the definition of the words used, just what they meant by them. In other words, I'm not redefining words. But for YEC, words must be redefined to mean something other then what they appear to mean, which is much different exegesis then the first. One says, when Jesus called Herod a fox, he just meant he was a punk. The second would be redefining "fox" to mean something other then the animal. Such as "well 'fox' actually is old Arabic slang for a totem pole of sorts that was hung over a...."
I am not redefining words, just applying them different.


At first blush.

[KBertsche]

I think the geo issue as compared with the YEC issue are apples and oranges as regards to language, frankly.

To say the sun is rising or setting is extremely common language then even the smartest scientist will use. Somehow I doubt these Jews and Gentiles were trying to be THAT meticulous in their choice of words.

Agreed. I would call it "accomodational" language, using the language of appearance.

But as for creation, the language is not as ambiguous. Not only does it speak of a creation "day", but further qualifies it by using "evening and morning". Not only that but qualifies it again at the end by saying "on the seventh day" he rested. And there is not to much ambiguity when dealing with genealogies or dating the flood of Noah.

I disagree; I think there's significant ambiguity here. "Evening and morning" could easily be a poetic description of "beginning and ending". Schroeder (a Jewish scientist) suggests an implication of "disorder to order" based on the Hebrew roots (but I don't buy this).

There is LOTS of disagreement about dates and genealogies before Abraham! The Hebrews tended to skip generations in their genealogies, such that most scholars don't believe we can use the genealogies for dating before Abraham. Kenneth Kitchen, a conservative evangelical archaeologist, has a nice discussion of this in his old book "Ancient Orient and the Old Testament".

Joshua asked for the sun and moon to stop, because while looking up at them, it appears they are the things moving, not us. I think it would be awkward for him to say "Lord! Halt the earth so I can have more light!"

Or it may have meant for the sun and moon to "stop giving light", or something else. See the current thread discussing this here.

[rogue06]

I think the geo issue as compared with the YEC issue are apples and oranges as regards to language, frankly.

To say the sun is rising or setting is extremely common language then even the smartest scientist will use. Somehow I doubt these Jews and Gentiles were trying to be THAT meticulous in their choice of words.
But as for creation, the language is not as ambiguous. Not only does it speak of a creation "day", but further qualifies it by using "evening and morning". Not only that but qualifies it again at the end by saying "on the seventh day" he rested. And there is not to much ambiguity when dealing with genealogies or dating the flood of Noah.

Everything you said about YEC is equally true for geocentricism. Scripture repeatedly affirms that the Earth does not move. Scripture repeatedly affirms that it is the Sun that does moves.

When saying "The sun rises, and the sun goes down...", this is what we observe, this is what it looks like. You don't observe the earth spinning or flying through space. If the first part of the sentence is observation, it follows that the second part "hastens" is just as simple. Why would he go from speaking about the sun in this simple way, to being more scientifically accurate after the comma?

I agree with the first part but don't you think when someone adds the hastening back part that they are strongly implying that they do indeed think the Sun is moving? It is so totally unnecessary. When we refer to a sunset today we don't add on anything about the the Sun hurrying back to be ready for the next sunrise. No, I think that the "hastens" part clearly indicates that the author was speaking literally rather than figuratively and that you shouldn't so casually dismiss it.

Joshua asked for the sun and moon to stop, because while looking up at them, it appears they are the things moving, not us. I think it would be awkward for him to say "Lord! Halt the earth so I can have more light!"
When Jesus called Herod "that fox" I doubt he meant that Herod was a four legged red animal. Likewise I think the characters in the bible spoke about the sun and moon moving just the same as we still do today. Because it is simple language, everybody knows what we're talking about, and it makes sense.

I agree with you that it makes sense from Joshua's perspective to ask for the Sun and Moon to stop, but the Bible goes on to say in the next verse that "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed" – not that they appeared to have stopped, but that they did stop.
BTW, I love your Herod/fox analogy and plan on using it.

On the other hand, if the universe WERE geocentric, the verses would make just as much sense!

Also, I am not changing the definition of the words used, just what they meant by them. In other words, I'm not redefining words. But for YEC, words must be redefined to mean something other then what they appear to mean, which is much different exegesis then the first. One says, when Jesus called Herod a fox, he just meant he was a punk. The second would be redefining "fox" to mean something other then the animal. Such as "well 'fox' actually is old Arabic slang for a totem pole of sorts that was hung over a...."
I am not redefining words, just applying them different.


At first blush.

My position on the geo verses is pretty much in agreement with yours. Where we differ is that I see it as support for the contention that the Bible is not a science textbook and should not be so employed. Further, I apply this to the YEC verses as well.
There are many OECs who will take serious issue with your assertion that you must redefine words in order to avoid a YEC interpretation of the Creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis.. Thus, while the YEC explanation is the most simple and direct, as we have seen in the case of the geo verses, the simple and direct way is not always necessarily the correct way.
Therefore, I agree with Aquinas when he wrote in his Summa Theologica (1273): "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

Back when I was young, calling someone a fox either meant they were very sly and clever or that she was a beautiful woman.

[Vigilante]

I disagree; I think there's significant ambiguity here. "Evening and morning" could easily be a poetic description of "beginning and ending". Schroeder (a Jewish scientist) suggests an implication of "disorder to order" based on the Hebrew roots (but I don't buy this).

Neither do I.
If you establish that Genesis is poetry, and not just one single phrase in the middle of a sentence, then that has merit. But the Hewbrew word "`ered" means all things "night", "evening", "even", "dark", "sunset", etc... This is how it is used everywhere.

The word morning, "Boqer" (in Gen 1:5), is not as clear. Descriptions for this word, as used in Gen 1:5, have meanings like:
morning, break of day
morning
of end of night
of coming of daylight
of coming of sunrise
of beginning of day
of bright joy after night of distress (fig.)
morrow, next day, next morning

But there are like 9 other Hewbrew words also translated "morning". In any case, none of these seem as a starting of an age. In fact, "end of night" seems to suggest more and ending of something than a beginning.

Then you have the term "day", which can even be translated from the same word as morning. But in most every place, if not every place, it denotes 24 hour periods. Joshua didn't march around Jericho for 7 ages!

In any case, seems to me that there were better words to use to talk about beginnings and endings. Second, it is not common to speak that way, as we do about the "sun setting". These terms, as far as I know, are not used that way in other writings. There seems to be a lot more hacking up of the text to maintain that. Unless you can prove it is myth or poetry, which wouldn't make sense given the extremely important role the story plays in the Christian gospel message. If Genesis and creation are peotry and myth, I don't see why Christianity is needed.

There is LOTS of disagreement about dates and genealogies before Abraham! The Hebrews tended to skip generations in their genealogies, such that most scholars don't believe we can use the genealogies for dating before Abraham. Kenneth Kitchen, a conservative evangelical archaeologist, has a nice discussion of this in his old book "Ancient Orient and the Old Testament".

I imagine that is the case, but not to the extent of millions of years of geneaologies missing! Perhaps some hundreds, maybe even thousands of years.

I check out the thread when I can, thanks.

[rogue06]

There is LOTS of disagreement about dates and genealogies before Abraham! The Hebrews tended to skip generations in their genealogies, such that most scholars don't believe we can use the genealogies for dating before Abraham. Kenneth Kitchen, a conservative evangelical archaeologist, has a nice discussion of this in his old book "Ancient Orient and the Old Testament".

Matthew 1:1 provides an example of a less than complete genealogy ("The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David,the son of Abraham."), one that verses 2-16 sought to correct.

[Vigilante]

Everything you said about YEC is equally true for geocentricism. Scripture repeatedly affirms that the Earth does not move. Scripture repeatedly affirms that it is the Sun that does moves.

I haven't been impressed with the scriptures used to back that up. When removing generic phrases about the sun setting or rising, common language stuff and normal observational viewpoints, you are left with like 4 or 5 versus, which I'm not sure qualifies as "repeatedly affirms".

I agree with the first part but don't you think when someone adds the hastening back part that they are strongly implying that they do indeed think the Sun is moving? It is so totally unnecessary. When we refer to a sunset today we don't add on anything about the the Sun hurrying back to be ready for the next sunrise. No, I think that the "hastens" part clearly indicates that the author was speaking literally rather than figuratively and that you shouldn't so casually dismiss it.

Sure that is a little odd. I wonder if THIS wasn't in slight poetic form? Who says:
The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens to the place where it rises.

And it not be for poetic reasons? It sounds like poetry, it just sounds like it. But I'll have to view it in context. I'm not dismissing this verse, it is one of the stronger ones, but I need to look into it more.

I agree with you that it makes sense from Joshua's perspective to ask for the Sun and Moon to stop, but the Bible goes on to say in the next verse that "the sun stood still, and the moon stayed" – not that they appeared to have stopped, but that they did stop.
BTW, I love your Herod/fox analogy and plan on using it.

Do you think it should say "appeared" to stop? I mean, if you look up in the sky and the sun isn't moving for 5 hours, I wouldn't be saying "it appears to have stopped". I'd say it HAS stopped!

On the other hand, when you're driving along on a hot summer day, and see "water" shimmering up ahead across the road, you could say it "appears" that the road is covered in water. You couldn't really say it IS covered, until you drive there, and find out it is a mirage.
But then, if you're outside chilling by the pool, and six hours later the sun is still at high noon, you'd probably run inside and tell your wife "DUDE! The sun is not moving!" Not that it appears to have stopped, but you have observed that it HAS stopped. Since you cannot observe an earth stopping, the sun is your only reference point. According to your eyes, the sun has stopped.

My position on the geo verses is pretty much in agreement with yours. Where we differ is that I see it as support for the contention that the Bible is not a science textbook and should not be so employed. Further, I apply this to the YEC verses as well.

I agree the bible wasn't written to BE a science book. However I do think where it specifically talks about science, it is correct. The Joshua events did not come to pass as divine revelation of geocentricism, it's purpose is wholly other. However, in Genesis, it IS written to teach us about origins, and that was IT'S purpose.

There are many OECs who will take serious issue with your assertion that you must redefine words in order to avoid a YEC interpretation of the Creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis.. Thus, while the YEC explanation is the most simple and direct, as we have seen in the case of the geo verses, the simple and direct way is not always necessarily the correct way.

I agree. But not that the geo verses come from a "simple" reading. That is like hyper-literalism, if there is such a thing. Like in the analogy of Herod/fox, it's only obvious to us that this isn't literal because a fox could not be a ruler. But if Jesus had used a less obvious word, how would we know? Where do we draw the line?
All the versus supporting geo can be explained simply by saying the writers spoke from observation, they observed the sun and moon doing things, not the earth. This is common language, we still speak this way today, and those verses have other theological purposes, which aren't to do with teaching science, as far as I know.

Contrast again with the first chapters of Genesis. You don't have to be hyper-literal, I mean, just read the words as they are. But to support OEC, it seems to me you literally have to redefine words to mean something OTHER then what they have meant for the last 2000 years, and somehow translators have got it wrong all this time. You have to take the words for "evening" and "morning" and redefine/retranslate in a way they are not translated anywhere else. You have to take "day", which nearly always means 24 hours, and in just a few verses, decide it means something drastically different.

It has been said, the bible aught to change us and our view of reality, not our view of reality changing the bible. If the Bible is God's Word, there is no reason why this shouldn't be true.

Therefore, I agree with Aquinas when he wrote in his Summa Theologica (1273): "In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to be observed, as Augustine teaches. The first is, to hold to the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false, lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

Good show.

Back when I was young, calling someone a fox either meant they were very sly and clever or that she was a beautiful woman.

Or perhaps they were a beautiful and sly, cunning woman, as most are.


I agree with Augustine as well, the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, with varying degrees of "hacking it up" first. My contention is that the geo issue and what is required to believe it, is no where near the same situation as the YEC/OEC interpretations.
Joshua's story had historical value, it had a point, something to study. It wasn't written as a science novel about the movements of heavenly bodies, those are highly incidentals.
But the first couple chapters of Genesis have extreme importance. It sets up a lot of things, including prophecy about the coming Messiah, Satan's demise, where sin came from, our sin inheritance, why we wear clothes, a 6 day work week, marriage unity, authority over animals and nature, populating the earth, and so on, tons of stuff. If it is poetry, there is no need to believe any of it. If myth, Christianity is useless. There is just a lot of stuff that changes when you hack up Genesis. I have to agree with AiG that Genesis really forms the foundation of the faith, and if you destroy it, you're not to far in destroying Christianity.
If Genesis is not what it seems to be (YEC), then that raises to many questions. What's the point of the "fall" if all life is killing each other anyway? What's the point of God shedding blood for clothes when there is bloodshed all over? What's the point of the curse if the earth is already filled with death, bloodshed and suffering, disease, etc...? What's the point of marriage if humans were just randomly breeding monkeys before this? How can God call all this horrid mess "very good"? With millions of years of breeding, you must have massive mutations and screwed up gene pools already, this isn't a "very good" start for mankind.
Nothing but nothing makes sense to me if Genesis isn't interpreted as it's written. It becomes like a lie, it starts with one little lie, but then someone questions you, so you have to make up a supporting lie, then another and another, pretty soon you've fabricated a whole story built on lies, one after another. And Genesis no longer looks like Genesis, but a mish mash of wrong words, bad interpretations, "fundy" misconceptions, and things get twisted all over the place to try and reconstruct the faith from a new foundation built on a lie.
This is what it looks like to me. So I guess on this point, I am the person, as Augustine said, who just holds the truth of scripture without wavering. Because It does not look to me like the "truth of scripture" is teaching OEC.
Mind you, that doesn't mean there is no room for me to believe the universe itself is really old, or even earth itself. But I MUST stand firm on the creation story of all life, it holds the meaning to the faith. At this point I can't believe God "used" evolution to create, and then arbitrary plucked out this male and female for the special start of mankind.

So there it is, in the face of all opposition, I believe the creation story, and even Noah's global flood, because it, as well, has pretty important theological purposes. Not to mention geographic purposes. That is, in explaining much natural phenomenon.


Well that is a bit more then I wanted to share, but oh well. Off to guitar practice!

[KBertsche]

Matthew 1:1 provides an example of a less than complete genealogy ("The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son of David,the son of Abraham."), one that verses 2-16 sought to correct.

This is a classic example of Hebrew genealogies skipping generations. If you look at Mt. 1:2-16 and compare with the Old Testament histories, you will see that even here 2 or 3 individuals are skipped! (I don't remember who, but I think they were some of the later Kings.)

Why? It seems that generations were left out so that there would be 3 sets of 14 generations each (Mt. 1:17). This was probably to make it easier to memorize. Note that "14" is the "number" of David: If you number the letters of the Hebrew alphabet (aleph=1, beth=2, etc.), the word "David" (daleth-waw-daleth) adds up to 14. So "14" would have been easy to remember in connection with "David".

[rogue06]

I haven't been impressed with the scriptures used to back that up. When removing generic phrases about the sun setting or rising, common language stuff and normal observational viewpoints, you are left with like 4 or 5 versus, which I'm not sure qualifies as "repeatedly affirms".

I think I only cited a few passages to begin with, Josh. 10:12-13 (cf. Hab. 3:11); I Chron. 16:30; Job 9:7; Eccles. 1:5; Isa. 38:8 (cf. II Ki. 20:9-11). The 60 or so that your geocentric source provided is more than a bit over-reaching. But more to the point, I find it a peculiar position to act dismissively of this approx half dozen of passages in light of the number of essential Christian beliefs and doctrines that are supported by considerably less. How many passages can you cite that directly attests to the virgin birth of Christ? The Trinity?

Sure that is a little odd. I wonder if THIS wasn't in slight poetic form? Who says:
The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens to the place where it rises.

And it not be for poetic reasons? It sounds like poetry, it just sounds like it. But I'll have to view it in context. I'm not dismissing this verse, it is one of the stronger ones, but I need to look into it more.

Someone might say it that way if he thought the Sun revolved around the Earth and was describing it thusly.

Do you think it should say "appeared" to stop? I mean, if you look up in the sky and the sun isn't moving for 5 hours, I wouldn't be saying "it appears to have stopped". I'd say it HAS stopped!

On the other hand, when you're driving along on a hot summer day, and see "water" shimmering up ahead across the road, you could say it "appears" that the road is covered in water. You couldn't really say it IS covered, until you drive there, and find out it is a mirage.
But then, if you're outside chilling by the pool, and six hours later the sun is still at high noon, you'd probably run inside and tell your wife "DUDE! The sun is not moving!" Not that it appears to have stopped, but you have observed that it HAS stopped. Since you cannot observe an earth stopping, the sun is your only reference point. According to your eyes, the sun has stopped.

I said "appears" because in reality the Sun didn't stop since it was never moving in the first place. Joshua 10:12-13 could have said that they appeared to stop in order to be both technically correct and keep the phrasing simple.
If you haven't already done so, you really should check out grmorton's alternative explanation for this event on the thread Joshua's sun--a new concept. What he says is intriguing.

I agree the bible wasn't written to BE a science book. However I do think where it specifically talks about science, it is correct. The Joshua events did not come to pass as divine revelation of geocentricism, it's purpose is wholly other. However, in Genesis, it IS written to teach us about origins, and that was IT'S purpose.

IMO Gen 1-2 was primarily meant to show that God had dominion over all of creation – not to be a literal chronology. Many of the things that the opening chapters of Genesis makes clear were created by God were worshipped as gods during that time: the Sun, the Moon, stars, the sky, mountains, various animals... All were created by God and therefore subject to God. Secondly, it shows that man's separation from God is a result of his (man's) own willfulness, whether due to literally eating a fruit off a forbiden tree or an allegory for our stubborn arrogance. If correct, then the primary purpose is not to teach us about our origins.

I agree. But not that the geo verses come from a "simple" reading. That is like hyper-literalism, if there is such a thing. Like in the analogy of Herod/fox, it's only obvious to us that this isn't literal because a fox could not be a ruler. But if Jesus had used a less obvious word, how would we know? Where do we draw the line?
All the versus supporting geo can be explained simply by saying the writers spoke from observation, they observed the sun and moon doing things, not the earth. This is common language, we still speak this way today, and those verses have other theological purposes, which aren't to do with teaching science, as far as I know.

Contrast again with the first chapters of Genesis. You don't have to be hyper-literal, I mean, just read the words as they are. But to support OEC, it seems to me you literally have to redefine words to mean something OTHER then what they have meant for the last 2000 years, and somehow translators have got it wrong all this time. You have to take the words for "evening" and "morning" and redefine/retranslate in a way they are not translated anywhere else. You have to take "day", which nearly always means 24 hours, and in just a few verses, decide it means something drastically different.

It has been said, the bible aught to change us and our view of reality, not our view of reality changing the bible. If the Bible is God's Word, there is no reason why this shouldn't be true.

A lot of what you say I agree with since I don't support the geocentric position and it becomes more difficult for me to credibly presenting their case, but I think they would disagree that they're being "hyper-literal" and would instead argue that you're being very selective and even a bit hypocritical in your interpretations. They criticize YECs for being "compromisers" in the same way that YECs accuse OECs and TEs of it. Speaking of OEC, I should point out that it is not some recent invention but has instead been around at least since the days of the Church Fathers. Just because YEC was the predominant interpretation doesn't make it the correct interpretation.

I agree with Augustine as well, the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, with varying degrees of "hacking it up" first. My contention is that the geo issue and what is required to believe it, is no where near the same situation as the YEC/OEC interpretations.
Joshua's story had historical value, it had a point, something to study. It wasn't written as a science novel about the movements of heavenly bodies, those are highly incidentals.
But the first couple chapters of Genesis have extreme importance. It sets up a lot of things, including prophecy about the coming Messiah, Satan's demise, where sin came from, our sin inheritance, why we wear clothes, a 6 day work week, marriage unity, authority over animals and nature, populating the earth, and so on, tons of stuff. If it is poetry, there is no need to believe any of it. If myth, Christianity is useless. There is just a lot of stuff that changes when you hack up Genesis. I have to agree with AiG that Genesis really forms the foundation of the faith, and if you destroy it, you're not to far in destroying Christianity.
If Genesis is not what it seems to be (YEC), then that raises to many questions. What's the point of the "fall" if all life is killing each other anyway? What's the point of God shedding blood for clothes when there is bloodshed all over? What's the point of the curse if the earth is already filled with death, bloodshed and suffering, disease, etc...? What's the point of marriage if humans were just randomly breeding monkeys before this? How can God call all this horrid mess "very good"? With millions of years of breeding, you must have massive mutations and screwed up gene pools already, this isn't a "very good" start for mankind.
Nothing but nothing makes sense to me if Genesis isn't interpreted as it's written. It becomes like a lie, it starts with one little lie, but then someone questions you, so you have to make up a supporting lie, then another and another, pretty soon you've fabricated a whole story built on lies, one after another. And Genesis no longer looks like Genesis, but a mish mash of wrong words, bad interpretations, "fundy" misconceptions, and things get twisted all over the place to try and reconstruct the faith from a new foundation built on a lie.
This is what it looks like to me. So I guess on this point, I am the person, as Augustine said, who just holds the truth of scripture without wavering. Because It does not look to me like the "truth of scripture" is teaching OEC.
Mind you, that doesn't mean there is no room for me to believe the universe itself is really old, or even earth itself. But I MUST stand firm on the creation story of all life, it holds the meaning to the faith. At this point I can't believe God "used" evolution to create, and then arbitrary plucked out this male and female for the special start of mankind.

So there it is, in the face of all opposition, I believe the creation story, and even Noah's global flood, because it, as well, has pretty important theological purposes. Not to mention geographic purposes. That is, in explaining much natural phenomenon.

Christians in Galileo's time would have vehemently disagreed. The saw heliocentricism as a frontal assault on the core beliefs of Christianity itself. If man wasn't at the physical center of creation (on a stationary Earth wit everything else revolving around it) then the rest of Christianity fell into svere doubt. "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as the claim that Jesus Christ was not born of a virgin," asserted St. Roberto Bellarmine (a Doctor of the Church and considered one of Christianity's most brilliant theologians), while Father Lecazre (eminent theologian
and rector at the Ollege of Dijon) grouse, "It casts suspicion on the doctrine of the Incarnation." Seems rather quaint today.
How could God have called His creation "very good" only to obliterate it in a global flood?
If you liked the Aquinas quote about Augustine then maybe you'll appreciate this quote from Augustine himself out of his (fittingly) "The Literal Meaning of Genesis":

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion." Here at the end Augustine has refered to 1 Tim. 1:7. Any comments?

I don't want to question your religious faith and convictions, just demonstrate that they aren't necessarly scientific (NOT that they should be).
I definitely disagree that Noah's Flood is responsible for explaining geography as I think you implied, but that is an entirely different subject.


Completely off topic, but do you believe in a literal or allegorical Tower of Babel?

[KBertsche]

IMO Gen 1-2 was primarily meant to show that God had dominion over all of creation – not to be a literal chronology. Many of the things that the opening chapters of Genesis makes clear were created by God were worshipped as gods during that time: the Sun, the Moon, stars, the sky, mountains, various animals... All were created by God and therefore subject to God. Secondly, it shows that man's separation from God is a result of his (man's) own willfulness, whether due to literally eating a fruit off a forbiden tree or an allegory for our stubborn arrogance. If correct, then the primary purpose is not to teach us about our origins.

Some other important theological points from Gen 1-2:
God created everything intentionally, purposefully, with a plan (as opposed to the Babylonian and other creation myths of the day, and to pure naturalism today).
God intended man to have a six-day work week, with a day for rest and worship (so He presented the account with a corresponding structure)

I strongly agree with you that theological lessons are the main thing that God is trying to communicate in the text. Scripture is all given for our edification, to know Him better, not to teach abstract facts. IMO, we need much more emphasis on the theological message of Genesis (which YEC, OEC, and TE should all agree on) and much less emphasis on the details of how it matches with modern science. I'm afraid that squabbling over secondary issues is causing us to miss the primary message of the text.

[Vigilante]

I'll do some more research and will make an appearance here again at some point in the future.


Rogue I wouldn't answer the Babel question without studying into it again, haven't read the story in ages. But on first blush, the main concepts I believe, that there really was a miracle of confused languages. That people were not spreading out and populating the earth, and that they attempted, corporately at some kind of sin of thinking they could ascend to heaven. Whether they built a physical structure or not, I dunno. But I do think the languages were confused, causing people to stop this idea, and to spread in groups around the globe. It didn't have to be many languages, since a lot of languages today are derived from others. But a sufficient few to break people up. Perhaps only in a dozen or so primary dialects? That's just first blush, I guess I don't really have a strong opinion on it yet. Why do you ask?


Also, I heard recently that the way we interpret the poetic or even mythical from the actual history, is by way of experience. In other words, if the author is speaking of a thing as though he saw it, or knew the person who saw it, that is, an actual experience, then it is history. But if the author is speaking of a thing he does not claim to have seen, or we can believe he had first hand data on, then it need not be actual history.
In this sense, if Moses wrote Genesis, having not experienced any of the events, or even having met any of those early people, the entire story need not be treated as literal history.

Any thoughts on that method? This, of course, would have to assume that the "real" history was never written in any records, or past on in oral traditions. That Moses' story would have to be pretty much entirely inspiration, which seems weird. It would have to come from tradition, but then, how much do we trust the tradition or early sources, since we know nothing about them? The sources aren't spoken of, so we can't be sure. But if no traditions, then Moses literally had no clue what he was writing, which is also weird.
I'm left with thinking two things:
1) The oral or written traditions of creation were accurate history.
2) THe oral or written traditions became legend and myth over time to such a degree that we can't actually be sure how much to trust them. If they changed, then how much? To what degree?

If 2, then it doesn't make sense, because God wrote obscure, confused, jacked up text.
If 1, it makes sense, we have an accurate account of creation.

[rogue06]

The question about the Tower of Babel was an after thoght brought on by your assertion that the purpose of Genesis was to teach us of our origins and that it (Genesis) was historical. I was curious how far that belief extended. BTW, as I stated earlier, I disagree with your premise. I think the purpose of Genesis is primarily theological rather than historical. KBertsche described this sentiment well when he wrote: "Scripture is all given for our edification, to know Him better, not to teach abstract facts."

Your method could be useful as a rough guide but there are are numerous exceptions.

There could be a third possibilit as explained above. That is that it is a theoogical lesson placed within an historical framework – not literal history since that was never its purpose. I must reject any notion that if a particular rather narrow interpretation is not 100% accurate, Christianity is falsified and falls apart. This was the fear in Galileo's time about heliocentricism and this is the fear today about ToE and to a lesser extent an old Earth.


What did you think of the long quote from Augustine's "The Literal Meaning of Genesis."

[KBertsche]

Then you have the term "day", which can even be translated from the same word as morning. But in most every place, if not every place, it denotes 24 hour periods. Joshua didn't march around Jericho for 7 ages!

Sorry, but this is not correct. Even restricting the field to Gen 1-2, the word "day" is used 3 or 4 different ways!
(It is used in 2 different ways in Gen 1:5. And a third way in Gen. 2:4. Gen 2:2-3 seems to be yet another meaning, as this "day" has no end.)

In any case, seems to me that there were better words to use to talk about beginnings and endings. Second, it is not common to speak that way, as we do about the "sun setting". These terms, as far as I know, are not used that way in other writings. There seems to be a lot more hacking up of the text to maintain that. Unless you can prove it is myth or poetry, which wouldn't make sense given the extremely important role the story plays in the Christian gospel message. If Genesis and creation are peotry and myth, I don't see why Christianity is needed.

I agree that the genre of Genesis 1-2 is narrative prose, not poetry. Nonetheless, it may have poetic elements. This frequently occurs in Hebrew narratives.