Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Genesis 1: the obvious reading??


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
190 replies to this topic

#1
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

I have not had much luck on this forum with starting new threads; but we'll see. 

 

It has been claimed on this site that Genesis 1 is "obviously" pure narrative.  By pure narrative I mean that the genre of the text excludes the following: allegory, poetic liturgy, myth etc.  I will not delay in defining those terms.  I only want to deal with the contention that it is "obviously narrative".

 

Elsewhere I proposed that YEC is based not primarily on exegesis but on something akin to fear.  I will not delay my reasons with apologies to those offended: I doubt apologies would soften the insult (though it was not intended as an insult). Nor will I labor the point that I am not necessarily an OEC; I think the YEC interpretation dead wrong, but I don't necessarily think that the scientists are right.
 
The real logic that I see operating among the YECs goes something like this, “Unless Genesis 1 is mere narrative depicting creation occurring over 6, 24 hour days, then nothing else in the Bible can be trusted as infallible.”  Thus the safest approach to Genesis if faith is to be sustained is to regard it as mere narrative.  Every other argument, whether scientific or exegetical, rests upon this foundation.  That is, the YEC begins first with the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history; then proceeds to look for the “proofs” that it is so. But of course all exegesis or science performed after the conclusion is formed is nothing more than a charade; everything becomes evidence in favor of the verdict, for desperation can find almost anything almost anywhere. 
 
I believe my proposal is corroborated by the habit of declaring the laws of physics inoperative whenever something astonishingly incongruent to our experience of the natural world is described in Genesis 1.  It is, or appears to me to be, a desperate maneuver.  When asked, “Why, if the laws of physics are good now, should God not have applied them at the start?” the common answer is “I let God be God” or “it is a mystery.”  Of course there are real mysteries of the faith and it is wise to recognize them.  But in a debate, this is the last card to be thrown down and one must be extremely cautious before doing so. Lay it down too early and everyone will see how weak your hand is.
 
Of course much of what I have just accused YECs could be accused of OECs and me (to distinguish myself from them): do we not want Genesis 1 to be something other than mere history?  Do we not come to the text already biased?  For my part, I don’t think so. I was not raised in a context where science and Scripture were at war: I never felt that other parts of Scripture were threatened by a non-literal reading of Genesis 1. But to show this I would like to try an experiment: I would like to simulate a “first-time reading of Genesis 1”.  The premise is this, “We are reading the Bible for the first time, with little training in languages and a smattering of science derived from experience and, say, a few Gen ed classes at the local college—with this question before us: is this intended as mere history, or as something else—a kind of poetry, or a kind of myth?”  For the general contention by YEC is that “it is so obvious a 12 year old can see it.” I am not sure I would allow a 12 year old to lead me in a Bible study.  But the point is clear.  Even a cursory reading of Genesis should make it obvious that the genre is mere narrative.  Let’s attempt a cursory reading with the basic education of an adult.
 
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."
 
 
It is near impossible to imagine such a conglomeration of unformed matter hanging out in infinite space.  Do we still have a spherical object before us?  No, for the dome (the expanse) will not yet be created until day 2.  What is it then that keeps the waters from drifting off.  More so, how is it that the waters are not frozen at absolute 0?
 
My immediate response to these questions is, “Perhaps we are not dealing with that kind of text.”  But it is claimed by YECs that the “obvious” answer that should come to mind is, “Clearly the laws of physics were inoperative or different back then.”  But I for one would never have even thought of that answer, let alone affirm it, unless I already had decided upon the question of what genre this text is—but the assertion we are dealing with is that the text declares itself to be pure narrative, and that obviously so; and the point of this experiment is to see how it “clearly is a narrative”.  So far it is “clearly” very unclear what kind of genre it is; but pure narrative would not be my first bet.
 
We can move on to the first day,  
 
And God said, a"Let there be light," and there was light.
 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
 (Gen 1:3-5 ESV)
 
We have source-less light; a phenomenon absolutely unknown to me and probably all humanity.  Not only that, but we have darkness somehow impregnable to the light, yet without the moon or any other object to block it.  What is it that keeps the light from penetrating and filling the darkness?  Again, how is there morning and evening (an alteration between light and darkness) without a sun around which the earth (still domeless) can move?
 
Of course there are all kinds of ingenious ways around this and, I admit, it has been fun to assume the viewpoint of a YEC and generate them: if I had begun with the “need” for this to be pure narrative, it would not only be fun but absolutely necessary.  But remember, we are coming at this text without the question of genre already answered.  And already by day two I find it less and less “obvious” that God has given us pure narrative—scientific speculations might alleviate most, if not all, of the apparent absurdities; but why should I resort to those kinds of speculation?  That is, why resort to them unless I already assume it was narrative before reading the text?
 
Day 2 I see little problems with; but I am not trying very hard.  This is a cursory reading and I am only looking at “obvious” features.
 
Day 3 We have plant life growing at an incredible rate—a rate without testimony in all of history (except, of course, here) and growing without heat.  Can God do this?  Of course!  But why should I assume He has?  I would only jump to that answer if I began this reading insisting I was embarking upon mere narrative.  But the point of the exercise is not to find out how it is narrative; we want to find out whether it is narrative.
 
Day 4 (and I am done).  Luminaries set in the sky.  I confess I do not know what gravitational effects such a sudden appearance of enormous matter in our proximity would have on us—perhaps none.  I will leave that alone.  I am told by the scientists that the stars are billions of miles away and that even light must take its time in getting here.  This creates something of a problem; the stars are for signs and seasons.  That is, they have a functional role in man’s life on earth.  But man is about to make his appearance in less than 72 hours and that means the stellar light will be rather tardy in fulfilling their roles!  The YECs would have me believe that the obvious answer is, “not only were the luminaries created instantly, but the light was created as already reaching us.  This raises a few questions for me: if light is created as already reaching me, at some point it must assume its normal behavior of ‘C’.  But that would mean that at some point it must, relatively speaking, begin to crawl across space.  And until it reaches me, we have no stars in the night sky; and therefore no functional signs.  
 
But there is no end to the ingenious ways of wiggling out of these discrepancies; my question is (and has been) why do I need to invoke scientific speculation, unless I have come to the text determined that it is pure narrative?  When I come to the text without that question already answered, I do not find that I am "obviously" dealing with “mere narrative”.  Perhaps it is mere narrative; I am not excluding that from the possibilities.  But it is not “obviously” narrative.  There is enough doubt to search for other possibilities. And if other genres make better sense of the text, if they answer more problems than raise them, then (is this Occam’s razor?) it is time abandon the suggestion that it is mere narrative.
 
In short, the YECs begin their exegesis by begging the question.
 
Side note: It would be an interesting exercise for YECs to count how many current laws of physics are broken in the first 6 days of creation. 
 
Anyhow, thoughts (better hurry up though, this thread is probably up for a limited time).
 
clb
 


#2
EnochBethany

EnochBethany

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

 

I have not had much luck on this forum with starting new threads; but we'll see. 

 

It has been claimed on this site that Genesis 1 is "obviously" pure narrative.  By pure narrative I mean that the genre of the text excludes the following: allegory, poetic liturgy, myth etc.  I will not delay in defining those terms.  I only want to deal with the contention that it is "obviously narrative".

 

Elsewhere I proposed that YEC is based not primarily on exegesis but on something akin to fear.  I will not delay my reasons with apologies to those offended: I doubt apologies would soften the insult (though it was not intended as an insult). Nor will I labor the point that I am not necessarily an OEC; I think the YEC interpretation dead wrong, but I don't necessarily think that the scientists are right.
 
The real logic that I see operating among the YECs goes something like this, “Unless Genesis 1 is mere narrative depicting creation occurring over 6, 24 hour days, then nothing else in the Bible can be trusted as infallible.”  Thus the safest approach to Genesis if faith is to be sustained is to regard it as mere narrative.  Every other argument, whether scientific or exegetical, rests upon this foundation.  That is, the YEC begins first with the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history; then proceeds to look for the “proofs” that it is so. But of course all exegesis or science performed after the conclusion is formed is nothing more than a charade; everything becomes evidence in favor of the verdict, for desperation can find almost anything almost anywhere. 
 
I believe my proposal is corroborated by the habit of declaring the laws of physics inoperative whenever something astonishingly incongruent to our experience of the natural world is described in Genesis 1.  It is, or appears to me to be, a desperate maneuver.  When asked, “Why, if the laws of physics are good now, should God not have applied them at the start?” the common answer is “I let God be God” or “it is a mystery.”  Of course there are real mysteries of the faith and it is wise to recognize them.  But in a debate, this is the last card to be thrown down and one must be extremely cautious before doing so. Lay it down too early and everyone will see how weak your hand is.
 
Of course much of what I have just accused YECs could be accused of OECs and me (to distinguish myself from them): do we not want Genesis 1 to be something other than mere history?  Do we not come to the text already biased?  For my part, I don’t think so. I was not raised in a context where science and Scripture were at war: I never felt that other parts of Scripture were threatened by a non-literal reading of Genesis 1. But to show this I would like to try an experiment: I would like to simulate a “first-time reading of Genesis 1”.  The premise is this, “We are reading the Bible for the first time, with little training in languages and a smattering of science derived from experience and, say, a few Gen ed classes at the local college—with this question before us: is this intended as mere history, or as something else—a kind of poetry, or a kind of myth?”  For the general contention by YEC is that “it is so obvious a 12 year old can see it.” I am not sure I would allow a 12 year old to lead me in a Bible study.  But the point is clear.  Even a cursory reading of Genesis should make it obvious that the genre is mere narrative.  Let’s attempt a cursory reading with the basic education of an adult.
 
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."
 
 
It is near impossible to imagine such a conglomeration of unformed matter hanging out in infinite space.  Do we still have a spherical object before us?  No, for the dome (the expanse) will not yet be created until day 2.  What is it then that keeps the waters from drifting off.  More so, how is it that the waters are not frozen at absolute 0?
 
My immediate response to these questions is, “Perhaps we are not dealing with that kind of text.”  But it is claimed by YECs that the “obvious” answer that should come to mind is, “Clearly the laws of physics were inoperative or different back then.”  But I for one would never have even thought of that answer, let alone affirm it, unless I already had decided upon the question of what genre this text is—but the assertion we are dealing with is that the text declares itself to be pure narrative, and that obviously so; and the point of this experiment is to see how it “clearly is a narrative”.  So far it is “clearly” very unclear what kind of genre it is; but pure narrative would not be my first bet.
 
We can move on to the first day,  
 
And God said, a"Let there be light," and there was light.
 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
 (Gen 1:3-5 ESV)
 
We have source-less light; a phenomenon absolutely unknown to me and probably all humanity.  Not only that, but we have darkness somehow impregnable to the light, yet without the moon or any other object to block it.  What is it that keeps the light from penetrating and filling the darkness?  Again, how is there morning and evening (an alteration between light and darkness) without a sun around which the earth (still domeless) can move?
 
Of course there are all kinds of ingenious ways around this and, I admit, it has been fun to assume the viewpoint of a YEC and generate them: if I had begun with the “need” for this to be pure narrative, it would not only be fun but absolutely necessary.  But remember, we are coming at this text without the question of genre already answered.  And already by day two I find it less and less “obvious” that God has given us pure narrative—scientific speculations might alleviate most, if not all, of the apparent absurdities; but why should I resort to those kinds of speculation?  That is, why resort to them unless I already assume it was narrative before reading the text?
 
Day 2 I see little problems with; but I am not trying very hard.  This is a cursory reading and I am only looking at “obvious” features.
 
Day 3 We have plant life growing at an incredible rate—a rate without testimony in all of history (except, of course, here) and growing without heat.  Can God do this?  Of course!  But why should I assume He has?  I would only jump to that answer if I began this reading insisting I was embarking upon mere narrative.  But the point of the exercise is not to find out how it is narrative; we want to find out whether it is narrative.
 
Day 4 (and I am done).  Luminaries set in the sky.  I confess I do not know what gravitational effects such a sudden appearance of enormous matter in our proximity would have on us—perhaps none.  I will leave that alone.  I am told by the scientists that the stars are billions of miles away and that even light must take its time in getting here.  This creates something of a problem; the stars are for signs and seasons.  That is, they have a functional role in man’s life on earth.  But man is about to make his appearance in less than 72 hours and that means the stellar light will be rather tardy in fulfilling their roles!  The YECs would have me believe that the obvious answer is, “not only were the luminaries created instantly, but the light was created as already reaching us.  This raises a few questions for me: if light is created as already reaching me, at some point it must assume its normal behavior of ‘C’.  But that would mean that at some point it must, relatively speaking, begin to crawl across space.  And until it reaches me, we have no stars in the night sky; and therefore no functional signs.  
 
But there is no end to the ingenious ways of wiggling out of these discrepancies; my question is (and has been) why do I need to invoke scientific speculation, unless I have come to the text determined that it is pure narrative?  When I come to the text without that question already answered, I do not find that I am "obviously" dealing with “mere narrative”.  Perhaps it is mere narrative; I am not excluding that from the possibilities.  But it is not “obviously” narrative.  There is enough doubt to search for other possibilities. And if other genres make better sense of the text, if they answer more problems than raise them, then (is this Occam’s razor?) it is time abandon the suggestion that it is mere narrative.
 
In short, the YECs begin their exegesis by begging the question.
 
Side note: It would be an interesting exercise for YECs to count how many current laws of physics are broken in the first 6 days of creation. 
 
Anyhow, thoughts (better hurry up though, this thread is probably up for a limited time).
 
clb

 

Well, I done heard of Yuck, but this is my first experience with YEC.  Let me guess, "Young Earth Chipmonks"?



#3
Sheniy

Sheniy

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts

Thanks for posting this. I would have posted something similar if you hadn't.
 

Elsewhere I proposed that YEC is based not primarily on exegesis but on something akin to fear.

The real logic that I see operating among the YECs goes something like this, “Unless Genesis 1 is mere narrative depicting creation occurring over 6, 24 hour days, then nothing else in the Bible can be trusted as infallible.”  Thus the safest approach to Genesis if faith is to be sustained is to regard it as mere narrative.  Every other argument, whether scientific or exegetical, rests upon this foundation.  That is, the YEC begins first with the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history; then proceeds to look for the “proofs” that it is so. But of course all exegesis or science performed after the conclusion is formed is nothing more than a charade; everything becomes evidence in favor of the verdict, for desperation can find almost anything almost anywhere.


As a former die-hard YEC, I can attest to this.

My faith in YEC was based on the fear that questioning ("doubting") was undermining the Word of God. I was indoctrinated from a young age, and if any questions about Genesis 1 came up, my faith in God was also questioned. My mother would say that I needed to "just trust God's Word", implying that my questions were a result of my lack of faith. (Although, even as a die-hard YEC, my mother believes that the serpent in the garden was figurative...).

IMHO, YEC is a radical reaction to the implications of the theory of evolution (whether it is true or not). When man encounters a deception, his usual reaction is to adopt the exact opposite stance, when the truth may lie somewhere in the middle.  Evolution is a lie (clearly), but is likely based on things that are true.  We all know that when Satan lies, there is usually some truth sown in to make the lie more believable.

 

 



#4
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,252 posts
It has been claimed on this site that Genesis 1 is "obviously" pure narrative.

 

 I have never seen that claim.  I have claimed that Genesis 1 is a historical narrative and nothing more, though.

 

By pure narrative I mean that the genre of the text excludes the following: allegory, poetic liturgy, myth etc.  I will not delay in defining those terms.  I only want to deal with the contention that it is "obviously narrative".

 

Well yes, it excludes those things.  It doesn't follow rules of Hebrew poetry, there is no evidence of allegory anywhere in the text.  You have to go outside of Bible to impose allegory on the text.  The Bible always indicates when allegory is in play and there are no internal textual indicators that alleory is in play.  There is no liturgy in play either.  Again, you have to go outside  of the Bible to make that kind of appeal to the text of Genesis 1. 

 

The Hebrew text of Genesis 1 is written the same narrative style that is used in any other historical narrative in Genesis or any other OT narrative. 

 

Elsewhere I proposed that YEC is based not primarily on exegesis but on something akin to fear.

 

Yes, that is the value you have to assign to us because absent that you really don't have any intelligent response to offer.

 

 

The real logic that I see operating among the YECs goes something like this, “Unless Genesis 1 is mere narrative depicting creation occurring over 6, 24 hour days, then nothing else in the Bible can be trusted as infallible.”

 

Well it is a little more complicated than that.  The nonliteral approach to Genesis isn't limited to Genesis 1.  It usually includes the view that seeks to accomodate evolution.  In addition, there is usually a rejection of Genesis three and man's fall in the Garden of Eden resulting from eating the forbidden fruit as real history, a rejection of a global flood and the tower of babel incident.   Most of the time, those who reject Genesis 1 as historical ususaly include the entire first eleven chapters of Genesis as being nonliteral. 

 

Furthermore, there is a view out there that Moses didn't really write Genesis that it was written around 850 BC as a polemic against the gods of Babylon, by two anonymous authors known only by the letters J and E.   I don't know if you suscribe to that view, but many who reject Genesis 1 as history, view it through the lense of being a moral story, not an actual occurance.  This makes plenty of room for an old earth, and evolutionary theory.

 

Thus the safest approach to Genesis if faith is to be sustained is to regard it as mere narrative.

 

Not exactly.  Looking at it as a historical narrative doesn't necessarily mean that one believes it to be true history.  The safest approach is to believe that it is true history inspired by the Holy Spirt as written and that God can be trusted to mean what He says.

 

 

Every other argument, whether scientific or exegetical, rests upon this foundation.  That is, the YEC begins first with the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history; then proceeds to look for the “proofs” that it is so.

 

Again, that is not really accurate.   The ones claiming it is not a historical narratives are the one who are on the wild goose chase trying to make the text something that it is not.  They are the ones seeking to prove what the text is.   My claim rests on the fact that it is a historical narrative by virtue of the structure of the text.  If you cannot provide any internal textual indicators provided by the author that clearly indicate the author had something else in mind, the text, by default, is to be understood as written, which is historical.

 

 

But of course all exegesis or science performed after the conclusion is formed is nothing more than a charade; everything becomes evidence in favor of the verdict, for desperation can find almost anything almost anywhere. 

 

Actually it is exegesis that proves it to be a historical narrative.  It is impossible to to do exegesis after forming a conclusion.  It can't be done.   A prior conclusion is eisogesis.  Any work done to prove a conclusion already reached isn't exegesis by definition.

 
I believe my proposal is corroborated by the habit of declaring the laws of physics inoperative whenever something astonishingly incongruent to our experience of the natural world is described in Genesis 1.  It is, or appears to me to be, a desperate maneuver.  When asked, “Why, if the laws of physics are good now, should God not have applied them at the start?” the common answer is “I let God be God” or “it is a mystery.”  Of course there are real mysteries of the faith and it is wise to recognize them.  But in a debate, this is the last card to be thrown down and one must be extremely cautious before doing so. Lay it down too early and everyone will see how weak your hand is.

 

Who says the laws of physics were not in existence or were broken in the first place?

 

Of course much of what I have just accused YECs could be accused of OECs and me (to distinguish myself from them): do we not want Genesis 1 to be something other than mere history?  Do we not come to the text already biased?  
It is not a question of what we want the text to be.  The question has to be about what the text actually is based on exegesis and the rules that govern literary analysis.  You are trying to make the YEC position as one based on what we want the text to mean and that is a false premsise.  I operate from the text is, in reality.  My conclusion that the text of Genesis 1 is historical isn't based on anything other than the objective standards of hermeneutics.
 
The premise is this, “We are reading the Bible for the first time, with little training in languages and a smattering of science derived from experience and, say, a few Gen ed classes at the local college—with this question before us: is this intended as mere history, or as something else—a kind of poetry, or a kind of myth?”  

 

But that level "education" leaves you unable to answer those questions because Hebrew poetry has its own rules and without that knowledge, you are unable to make a competent decision as to whether or not you are reading poetry or not.  The same holds true for myth as well.

 

 

 

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."
 
 
It is near impossible to imagine such a conglomeration of unformed matter hanging out in infinite space.  Do we still have a spherical object before us?  No, for the dome (the expanse) will not yet be created until day 2.  What is it then that keeps the waters from drifting off.  More so, how is it that the waters are not frozen at absolute 0?
 
My immediate response to these questions is, “Perhaps we are not dealing with that kind of text.”  But it is claimed by YECs that the “obvious” answer that should come to mind is, “Clearly the laws of physics were inoperative or different back then.”  But I for one would never have even thought of that answer, let alone affirm it, unless I already had decided upon the question of what genre this text is—but the assertion we are dealing with is that the text declares itself to be pure narrative, and that obviously so; and the point of this experiment is to see how it “clearly is a narrative”.  So far it is “clearly” very unclear what kind of genre it is; but pure narrative would not be my first bet.
All I see you doing is assigning responses to the YEC.  You are deciding what we will say and then offering your response to your imaginative YEC response.  That is a textbook strawman argument. 
 
We can move on to the first day,  
 
And God said, a"Let there be light," and there was light.
 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
 (Gen 1:3-5 ESV)
 
We have source-less light; a phenomenon absolutely unknown to me and probably all humanity.

 

That is factually in correct.  God is the source of the light.  One thing we see in Genesis 1 is that God is the sustainer of the universe.  Darkness was the last thing mentioned in Gen. 1:2.  It is the first thing God deals with as He begins creation.   He goes in reverse order of how the pre-creation conditions are listed in 1:2.

 
One thing I think is clear to see is that the light of the luminaries like the sun and stars ultimately have God has their source of light. 


#5
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,252 posts

Continued form previous post...

 

Not only that, but we have darkness somehow impregnable to the light, yet without the moon or any other object to block it.  What is it that keeps the light from penetrating and filling the darkness?  Again, how is there morning and evening (an alteration between light and darkness) without a sun around which the earth (still domeless) can move?

 

Why is that a problem for the Lord?    It appears to me that you have a real problem with having to bring yourself to account for the fact that the creation story is a supernatural event.  It is a not a naturalistic event.   There is a divine, supernatural element to this that simply defies our ability to explain every detail.

 

Day 3 We have plant life growing at an incredible rate—a rate without testimony in all of history (except, of course, here) and growing without heat.  Can God do this?  Of course!  But why should I assume He has?  

 

Because that is what He said He did.  What this shows us is that God created the trees and other vegitation functionally mature.  He creaeted all of the fruit trees with fruit already on them ready to be eaten.  Same with other vegitation that was intended by God to be food for us.

 

 I will leave that alone.  I am told by the scientists that the stars are billions of miles away and that even light must take its time in getting here.  This creates something of a problem; the stars are for signs and seasons.  That is, they have a functional role in man’s life on earth.  But man is about to make his appearance in less than 72 hours and that means the stellar light will be rather tardy in fulfilling their roles!

 

But that assumes that such a function was an immediate need.  The sun and the moon are mostly what are used to determine seasons, not the stars. It only a matter of minuteis for sun light to reach the earth and the moon even less.  So there is no problem with the stars not being immediate available the day they were created.

 

The YECs would have me believe that the obvious answer is, “not only were the luminaries created instantly, but the light was created as already reaching us.

 

Frankly, you don't know squat about what YEC'ers would "have you believe."  All you know is what you might imagine they would say.

 
 
In short, the YECs begin their exegesis by begging the question.

 

Says the man who knows NOTHING about exegesis as proven in the OP on this thread.

 
Side note: It would be an interesting exercise for YECs to count how many current laws of physics are broken in the first 6 days of creation. 

 

Again, that is an assumption and I don't have to count anything.  I have the word of an all-knowing, all-powerful God who doesn't make mistakes and never lies.  I will trust His word over your beggardly and rather lame attempts at exegesis any day.



#6
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

 

 

I have not had much luck on this forum with starting new threads; but we'll see. 

 

It has been claimed on this site that Genesis 1 is "obviously" pure narrative.  By pure narrative I mean that the genre of the text excludes the following: allegory, poetic liturgy, myth etc.  I will not delay in defining those terms.  I only want to deal with the contention that it is "obviously narrative".

 

Elsewhere I proposed that YEC is based not primarily on exegesis but on something akin to fear.  I will not delay my reasons with apologies to those offended: I doubt apologies would soften the insult (though it was not intended as an insult). Nor will I labor the point that I am not necessarily an OEC; I think the YEC interpretation dead wrong, but I don't necessarily think that the scientists are right.
 
The real logic that I see operating among the YECs goes something like this, “Unless Genesis 1 is mere narrative depicting creation occurring over 6, 24 hour days, then nothing else in the Bible can be trusted as infallible.”  Thus the safest approach to Genesis if faith is to be sustained is to regard it as mere narrative.  Every other argument, whether scientific or exegetical, rests upon this foundation.  That is, the YEC begins first with the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history; then proceeds to look for the “proofs” that it is so. But of course all exegesis or science performed after the conclusion is formed is nothing more than a charade; everything becomes evidence in favor of the verdict, for desperation can find almost anything almost anywhere. 
 
I believe my proposal is corroborated by the habit of declaring the laws of physics inoperative whenever something astonishingly incongruent to our experience of the natural world is described in Genesis 1.  It is, or appears to me to be, a desperate maneuver.  When asked, “Why, if the laws of physics are good now, should God not have applied them at the start?” the common answer is “I let God be God” or “it is a mystery.”  Of course there are real mysteries of the faith and it is wise to recognize them.  But in a debate, this is the last card to be thrown down and one must be extremely cautious before doing so. Lay it down too early and everyone will see how weak your hand is.
 
Of course much of what I have just accused YECs could be accused of OECs and me (to distinguish myself from them): do we not want Genesis 1 to be something other than mere history?  Do we not come to the text already biased?  For my part, I don’t think so. I was not raised in a context where science and Scripture were at war: I never felt that other parts of Scripture were threatened by a non-literal reading of Genesis 1. But to show this I would like to try an experiment: I would like to simulate a “first-time reading of Genesis 1”.  The premise is this, “We are reading the Bible for the first time, with little training in languages and a smattering of science derived from experience and, say, a few Gen ed classes at the local college—with this question before us: is this intended as mere history, or as something else—a kind of poetry, or a kind of myth?”  For the general contention by YEC is that “it is so obvious a 12 year old can see it.” I am not sure I would allow a 12 year old to lead me in a Bible study.  But the point is clear.  Even a cursory reading of Genesis should make it obvious that the genre is mere narrative.  Let’s attempt a cursory reading with the basic education of an adult.
 
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."
 
 
It is near impossible to imagine such a conglomeration of unformed matter hanging out in infinite space.  Do we still have a spherical object before us?  No, for the dome (the expanse) will not yet be created until day 2.  What is it then that keeps the waters from drifting off.  More so, how is it that the waters are not frozen at absolute 0?
 
My immediate response to these questions is, “Perhaps we are not dealing with that kind of text.”  But it is claimed by YECs that the “obvious” answer that should come to mind is, “Clearly the laws of physics were inoperative or different back then.”  But I for one would never have even thought of that answer, let alone affirm it, unless I already had decided upon the question of what genre this text is—but the assertion we are dealing with is that the text declares itself to be pure narrative, and that obviously so; and the point of this experiment is to see how it “clearly is a narrative”.  So far it is “clearly” very unclear what kind of genre it is; but pure narrative would not be my first bet.
 
We can move on to the first day,  
 
And God said, a"Let there be light," and there was light.
 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
 (Gen 1:3-5 ESV)
 
We have source-less light; a phenomenon absolutely unknown to me and probably all humanity.  Not only that, but we have darkness somehow impregnable to the light, yet without the moon or any other object to block it.  What is it that keeps the light from penetrating and filling the darkness?  Again, how is there morning and evening (an alteration between light and darkness) without a sun around which the earth (still domeless) can move?
 
Of course there are all kinds of ingenious ways around this and, I admit, it has been fun to assume the viewpoint of a YEC and generate them: if I had begun with the “need” for this to be pure narrative, it would not only be fun but absolutely necessary.  But remember, we are coming at this text without the question of genre already answered.  And already by day two I find it less and less “obvious” that God has given us pure narrative—scientific speculations might alleviate most, if not all, of the apparent absurdities; but why should I resort to those kinds of speculation?  That is, why resort to them unless I already assume it was narrative before reading the text?
 
Day 2 I see little problems with; but I am not trying very hard.  This is a cursory reading and I am only looking at “obvious” features.
 
Day 3 We have plant life growing at an incredible rate—a rate without testimony in all of history (except, of course, here) and growing without heat.  Can God do this?  Of course!  But why should I assume He has?  I would only jump to that answer if I began this reading insisting I was embarking upon mere narrative.  But the point of the exercise is not to find out how it is narrative; we want to find out whether it is narrative.
 
Day 4 (and I am done).  Luminaries set in the sky.  I confess I do not know what gravitational effects such a sudden appearance of enormous matter in our proximity would have on us—perhaps none.  I will leave that alone.  I am told by the scientists that the stars are billions of miles away and that even light must take its time in getting here.  This creates something of a problem; the stars are for signs and seasons.  That is, they have a functional role in man’s life on earth.  But man is about to make his appearance in less than 72 hours and that means the stellar light will be rather tardy in fulfilling their roles!  The YECs would have me believe that the obvious answer is, “not only were the luminaries created instantly, but the light was created as already reaching us.  This raises a few questions for me: if light is created as already reaching me, at some point it must assume its normal behavior of ‘C’.  But that would mean that at some point it must, relatively speaking, begin to crawl across space.  And until it reaches me, we have no stars in the night sky; and therefore no functional signs.  
 
But there is no end to the ingenious ways of wiggling out of these discrepancies; my question is (and has been) why do I need to invoke scientific speculation, unless I have come to the text determined that it is pure narrative?  When I come to the text without that question already answered, I do not find that I am "obviously" dealing with “mere narrative”.  Perhaps it is mere narrative; I am not excluding that from the possibilities.  But it is not “obviously” narrative.  There is enough doubt to search for other possibilities. And if other genres make better sense of the text, if they answer more problems than raise them, then (is this Occam’s razor?) it is time abandon the suggestion that it is mere narrative.
 
In short, the YECs begin their exegesis by begging the question.
 
Side note: It would be an interesting exercise for YECs to count how many current laws of physics are broken in the first 6 days of creation. 
 
Anyhow, thoughts (better hurry up though, this thread is probably up for a limited time).
 
clb

 

Well, I done heard of Yuck, but this is my first experience with YEC.  Let me guess, "Young Earth Chipmonks"?

 

Apologies 

 

I have never heard of yuck, and only met YEC on this forum = Young earth creationists

 

clb


Edited by ConnorLiamBrown, 27 February 2014 - 01:11 PM.


#7
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

 

Continued form previous post...

 

Not only that, but we have darkness somehow impregnable to the light, yet without the moon or any other object to block it.  What is it that keeps the light from penetrating and filling the darkness?  Again, how is there morning and evening (an alteration between light and darkness) without a sun around which the earth (still domeless) can move?

 

Why is that a problem for the Lord?    It appears to me that you have a real problem with having to bring yourself to account for the fact that the creation story is a supernatural event.  It is a not a naturalistic event.   There is a divine, supernatural element to this that simply defies our ability to explain every detail.

 

Day 3 We have plant life growing at an incredible rate—a rate without testimony in all of history (except, of course, here) and growing without heat.  Can God do this?  Of course!  But why should I assume He has?  

 

Because that is what He said He did.  What this shows us is that God created the trees and other vegitation functionally mature.  He creaeted all of the fruit trees with fruit already on them ready to be eaten.  Same with other vegitation that was intended by God to be food for us.

 

 I will leave that alone.  I am told by the scientists that the stars are billions of miles away and that even light must take its time in getting here.  This creates something of a problem; the stars are for signs and seasons.  That is, they have a functional role in man’s life on earth.  But man is about to make his appearance in less than 72 hours and that means the stellar light will be rather tardy in fulfilling their roles!

 

But that assumes that such a function was an immediate need.  The sun and the moon are mostly what are used to determine seasons, not the stars. It only a matter of minuteis for sun light to reach the earth and the moon even less.  So there is no problem with the stars not being immediate available the day they were created.

 

The YECs would have me believe that the obvious answer is, “not only were the luminaries created instantly, but the light was created as already reaching us.

 

Frankly, you don't know squat about what YEC'ers would "have you believe."  All you know is what you might imagine they would say.

 
 
In short, the YECs begin their exegesis by begging the question.

 

Says the man who knows NOTHING about exegesis as proven in the OP on this thread.

 
Side note: It would be an interesting exercise for YECs to count how many current laws of physics are broken in the first 6 days of creation. 

 

Again, that is an assumption and I don't have to count anything.  I have the word of an all-knowing, all-powerful God who doesn't make mistakes and never lies.  I will trust His word over your beggardly and rather lame attempts at exegesis any day.

 

Hello all,

 

Some people here have missed what the point of the exercise was: the exercise was not necessarily to disprove YEC but to show that it was not "the obvious reading".  That the YEC reading begs for other approaches to be tried.  

 

Some people also don't realize that comments like these 

 

I will trust His word over your beggardly and rather lame attempts at exegesis any day.

 

 

actually hurt their case--not the case for YEC (that can still be established by sound exegesis)  but the case that it is not primarily based on fear.  Insults are the final, and desperate attack against a perceived threat: theyre  what come out when you are backed into a corner.  I think it would be better for one's soul  and position to resist reading posts if one can't keep his cool.

 

clb



#8
Sheniy

Sheniy

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts
My guess: Yuck = Young Universe Creationist? Not very nice. I can see why some prefer YEC.

I've never heard either before coming to this forum, and I used to be one. lol

#9
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

Very interesting OP.  It seems to me that if one is married to the idea of a literal Genesis, they should not comment on science as science does not do well with presupposition.  As you mentioned (or at least that's my interpretation), it ends up boiling down to faith and supernatural when the tale conflicts with known science/logic.   

 

 

 

 Insults are the final, and desperate attack against a perceived threat: theyre  what come out when you are backed into a corner.  I think it would be better for one's soul  and position to resist reading posts if one can't keep his cool.

 

clb

 

Seems to me, it's not always the "final...attack", but the first response. 



#10
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

 

 

But of course all exegesis or science performed after the conclusion is formed is nothing more than a charade; everything becomes evidence in favor of the verdict, for desperation can find almost anything almost anywhere. 

 

Actually it is exegesis that proves it to be a historical narrative.  It is impossible to to do exegesis after forming a conclusion.  It can't be done.   A prior conclusion is eisogesis.  Any work done to prove a conclusion already reached isn't exegesis by definition.

 

Correct.  We are both agreed here.  My contention is that you are doing eisogesis (and yours is that I am doing it).  The point of this exercise is to see what the obvious reading is.

 

I believe my proposal is corroborated by the habit of declaring the laws of physics inoperative whenever something astonishingly incongruent to our experience of the natural world is described in Genesis 1.  It is, or appears to me to be, a desperate maneuver.  When asked, “Why, if the laws of physics are good now, should God not have applied them at the start?” the common answer is “I let God be God” or “it is a mystery.”  Of course there are real mysteries of the faith and it is wise to recognize them.  But in a debate, this is the last card to be thrown down and one must be extremely cautious before doing so. Lay it down too early and everyone will see how weak your hand is.

 

Who says the laws of physics were not in existence or were broken in the first place?

 

 

Many people off this site; Enoch on this site; you when you say (below) that it is a supernatural event.  If supernatural does not involve the suspension of laws (i.e. laws of nature) then perhaps you had better define supernatural.

 

Of course much of what I have just accused YECs could be accused of OECs and me (to distinguish myself from them): do we not want Genesis 1 to be something other than mere history?  Do we not come to the text already biased?  

It is not a question of what we want the text to be.  The question has to be about what the text actually is based on exegesis and the rules that govern literary analysis.  You are trying to make the YEC position as one based on what we want the text to mean and that is a false premsise.  I operate from the text is, in reality.  My conclusion that the text of Genesis 1 is historical isn't based on anything other than the objective standards of hermeneutics.

 

 

 

This is not entirely true:  in one of your more biographical posts you made it a spiritual crisis.  Either trusting the Word of God or Evolution or the sciences (can’t find it right now).  That is not exegesis.  That is a leap of faith.  One doesn’t reject Evolution because one feels it is incompatible with God’s Word; we must reject evolution because we see that evolution is wrong (on its own terms).  Intellectual honesty requires it—and since God created the intellect and enjoins upon us the duty of honesty, God requires it.

 

The premise is this, “We are reading the Bible for the first time, with little training in languages and a smattering of science derived from experience and, say, a few Gen ed classes at the local college—with this question before us: is this intended as mere history, or as something else—a kind of poetry, or a kind of myth?”  

 

But that level "education" leaves you unable to answer those questions because Hebrew poetry has its own rules and without that knowledge, you are unable to make a competent decision as to whether or not you are reading poetry or not.  The same holds true for myth as well.

 

 

The exercise is to test the hypothesis that the “obvious” reading is historical narrative.  If you never made that claim, then maybe I wasn’t addressing you.

 

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

 

 

It is near impossible to imagine such a conglomeration of unformed matter hanging out in infinite space.  Do we still have a spherical object before us?  No, for the dome (the expanse) will not yet be created until day 2.  What is it then that keeps the waters from drifting off.  More so, how is it that the waters are not frozen at absolute 0?

 

My immediate response to these questions is, “Perhaps we are not dealing with that kind of text.”  But it is claimed by YECs that the “obvious” answer that should come to mind is, “Clearly the laws of physics were inoperative or different back then.”  But I for one would never have even thought of that answer, let alone affirm it, unless I already had decided upon the question of what genre this text is—but the assertion we are dealing with is that the text declares itself to be pure narrative, and that obviously so; and the point of this experiment is to see how it “clearly is a narrative”.  So far it is “clearly” very unclear what kind of genre it is; but pure narrative would not be my first bet.

All I see you doing is assigning responses to the YEC.  You are deciding what we will say and then offering your response to your imaginative YEC response.  That is a textbook strawman argument. 

 

 

I have to remind you you are not the only YEC out there; is it possible I am responding to other YECers?

 

 

 



#11
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts
This is a continuation from a reply to Shiloh above.  First quotes are mine, then his reply, then my final.
 
And....can I get an Amen from everyone as to my progress in the "quoting mechanism"?!  Enoch, are you watching?

We can move on to the first day,  

 

And God said, a"Let there be light," and there was light.

 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.

 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

 (Gen 1:3-5 ESV)

 

We have source-less light; a phenomenon absolutely unknown to me and probably all humanity.

 

That is factually in correct.  God is the source of the light.  One thing we see in Genesis 1 is that God is the sustainer of the universe.  Darkness was the last thing mentioned in Gen. 1:2.  It is the first thing God deals with as He begins creation.   He goes in reverse order of how the pre-creation conditions are listed in 1:2.One thing I think is clear to see is that the light of the luminaries like the sun and stars ultimately have God has their source of light. 

 

 

 

Light as we know it is based on waves and particles.  Trace them back and you will get to a source.  Today, we ultimately get to stars (ours or the billion others).  Back then, you would get (you say) to God.  What would you see once you traced the light all the way back to its source?

 

Quote

Not only that, but we have darkness somehow impregnable to the light, yet without the moon or any other object to block it.  What is it that keeps the light from penetrating and filling the darkness?  Again, how is there morning and evening (an alteration between light and darkness) without a sun around which the earth (still domeless) can move?

 

Why is that a problem for the Lord?    It appears to me that you have a real problem with having to bring yourself to account for the fact that the creation story is a supernatural event.  It is a not a naturalistic event.   There is a divine, supernatural element to this that simply defies our ability to explain every detail.

 

 

It is not a problem for the Lord.  The Lord can of course do this; and then decide to relinquish light to its current behavior.  The present exercise is not to see what God can and can’t do, but to see whether YEC is the “obvious” reading.

 

 I will leave that alone.  I am told by the scientists that the stars are billions of miles away and that even light must take its time in getting here.  This creates something of a problem; the stars are for signs and seasons.  That is, they have a functional role in man’s life on earth.  But man is about to make his appearance in less than 72 hours and that means the stellar light will be rather tardy in fulfilling their roles!

 

But that assumes that such a function was an immediate need.  The sun and the moon are mostly what are used to determine seasons, not the stars. It only a matter of minuteis for sun light to reach the earth and the moon even less.  So there is no problem with the stars not being immediate available the day they were created.

 

 

Let me try and understand.  On day 6 the light from the sun and moon had reached earth but not the stars?  So when Adam and Eve gazed up into the night sky, they would perceive a moon but not a single star?  Who, based on what you think of the distance of the stars and the speed of light, would have been the first witnesses of an utterly dark sky (apart from the moon) suddenly twinkling into a star bedazzled dome?  Cain?  Enoch?  Abraham?  King David?

 

The YECs would have me believe that the obvious answer is, “not only were the luminaries created instantly, but the light was created as already reaching us.

 

Frankly, you don't know squat about what YEC'ers would "have you believe."  All you know is what you might imagine they would say.

 

 

 

This was Enoch’s response to me (and someone else’s but I have forgotten the name).  Youre not the only YEC

 

In short, the YECs begin their exegesis by begging the question.

 

Says the man who knows NOTHING about exegesis as proven in the OP on this thread.

 

 

1)      Responses like these hurt your case (see above); keep your cool, Shiloh.

2)      I have already invited you to discuss this issue one on one

3)      Does anyone else agree with you (other than Enoch, who would agree with you without even knowing the question)

4)      I wasn't doing exegesis above; I was testing the hypothesis that historical narrative was the obvious genre.

 

 

Side note: It would be an interesting exercise for YECs to count how many current laws of physics are broken in the first 6 days of creation. 

 

Again, that is an assumption and I don't have to count anything.  I have the word of an all-knowing, all-powerful God who doesn't make mistakes and never lies.  I will trust His word over your beggardly and rather lame attempts at exegesis any day.

 

 

It was a side-note my friend.  I said it would be interesting.  Keep your cool; it’s not impressive when you lose it.


Edited by ConnorLiamBrown, 27 February 2014 - 01:55 PM.


#12
a-seeker

a-seeker

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 706 posts

My guess: Yuck = Young Universe Creationist? Not very nice. I can see why some prefer YEC.

I've never heard either before coming to this forum, and I used to be one. lol

What would the "K" be at the end of Yuck....or just added for good measure?



#13
Sheniy

Sheniy

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts

 

My guess: Yuck = Young Universe Creationist? Not very nice. I can see why some prefer YEC.

I've never heard either before coming to this forum, and I used to be one. lol

What would the "K" be at the end of Yuck....or just added for good measure?

 

I'm thinking it's YUC, and "Yuck" is meant to be derogatory.



#14
Sheniy

Sheniy

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts

Very interesting OP.  It seems to me that if one is married to the idea of a literal Genesis, they should not comment on science as science does not do well with presupposition.  As you mentioned (or at least that's my interpretation), it ends up boiling down to faith and supernatural when the tale conflicts with known science/logic.   

 

 

True.  I suppose we could also say the same about those who are strict adherents to the teachings of Darwin. ;)

 

By the way, hi. ^_^



#15
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,003 posts

 

I have not had much luck on this forum with starting new threads; but we'll see. 

 

It has been claimed on this site that Genesis 1 is "obviously" pure narrative.  By pure narrative I mean that the genre of the text excludes the following: allegory, poetic liturgy, myth etc.  I will not delay in defining those terms.  I only want to deal with the contention that it is "obviously narrative".

 

Elsewhere I proposed that YEC is based not primarily on exegesis but on something akin to fear.  I will not delay my reasons with apologies to those offended: I doubt apologies would soften the insult (though it was not intended as an insult). Nor will I labor the point that I am not necessarily an OEC; I think the YEC interpretation dead wrong, but I don't necessarily think that the scientists are right.
 
The real logic that I see operating among the YECs goes something like this, “Unless Genesis 1 is mere narrative depicting creation occurring over 6, 24 hour days, then nothing else in the Bible can be trusted as infallible.”  Thus the safest approach to Genesis if faith is to be sustained is to regard it as mere narrative.  Every other argument, whether scientific or exegetical, rests upon this foundation.  That is, the YEC begins first with the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history; then proceeds to look for the “proofs” that it is so. But of course all exegesis or science performed after the conclusion is formed is nothing more than a charade; everything becomes evidence in favor of the verdict, for desperation can find almost anything almost anywhere. 
 
I believe my proposal is corroborated by the habit of declaring the laws of physics inoperative whenever something astonishingly incongruent to our experience of the natural world is described in Genesis 1.  It is, or appears to me to be, a desperate maneuver.  When asked, “Why, if the laws of physics are good now, should God not have applied them at the start?” the common answer is “I let God be God” or “it is a mystery.”  Of course there are real mysteries of the faith and it is wise to recognize them.  But in a debate, this is the last card to be thrown down and one must be extremely cautious before doing so. Lay it down too early and everyone will see how weak your hand is.
 
Of course much of what I have just accused YECs could be accused of OECs and me (to distinguish myself from them): do we not want Genesis 1 to be something other than mere history?  Do we not come to the text already biased?  For my part, I don’t think so. I was not raised in a context where science and Scripture were at war: I never felt that other parts of Scripture were threatened by a non-literal reading of Genesis 1. But to show this I would like to try an experiment: I would like to simulate a “first-time reading of Genesis 1”.  The premise is this, “We are reading the Bible for the first time, with little training in languages and a smattering of science derived from experience and, say, a few Gen ed classes at the local college—with this question before us: is this intended as mere history, or as something else—a kind of poetry, or a kind of myth?”  For the general contention by YEC is that “it is so obvious a 12 year old can see it.” I am not sure I would allow a 12 year old to lead me in a Bible study.  But the point is clear.  Even a cursory reading of Genesis should make it obvious that the genre is mere narrative.  Let’s attempt a cursory reading with the basic education of an adult.
 
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."
 
 
It is near impossible to imagine such a conglomeration of unformed matter hanging out in infinite space.  Do we still have a spherical object before us?  No, for the dome (the expanse) will not yet be created until day 2.  What is it then that keeps the waters from drifting off.  More so, how is it that the waters are not frozen at absolute 0?
 
My immediate response to these questions is, “Perhaps we are not dealing with that kind of text.”  But it is claimed by YECs that the “obvious” answer that should come to mind is, “Clearly the laws of physics were inoperative or different back then.”  But I for one would never have even thought of that answer, let alone affirm it, unless I already had decided upon the question of what genre this text is—but the assertion we are dealing with is that the text declares itself to be pure narrative, and that obviously so; and the point of this experiment is to see how it “clearly is a narrative”.  So far it is “clearly” very unclear what kind of genre it is; but pure narrative would not be my first bet.
 
We can move on to the first day,  
 
And God said, a"Let there be light," and there was light.
 4 And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.
 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.
 (Gen 1:3-5 ESV)
 
We have source-less light; a phenomenon absolutely unknown to me and probably all humanity.  Not only that, but we have darkness somehow impregnable to the light, yet without the moon or any other object to block it.  What is it that keeps the light from penetrating and filling the darkness?  Again, how is there morning and evening (an alteration between light and darkness) without a sun around which the earth (still domeless) can move?
 
Of course there are all kinds of ingenious ways around this and, I admit, it has been fun to assume the viewpoint of a YEC and generate them: if I had begun with the “need” for this to be pure narrative, it would not only be fun but absolutely necessary.  But remember, we are coming at this text without the question of genre already answered.  And already by day two I find it less and less “obvious” that God has given us pure narrative—scientific speculations might alleviate most, if not all, of the apparent absurdities; but why should I resort to those kinds of speculation?  That is, why resort to them unless I already assume it was narrative before reading the text?
 
Day 2 I see little problems with; but I am not trying very hard.  This is a cursory reading and I am only looking at “obvious” features.
 
Day 3 We have plant life growing at an incredible rate—a rate without testimony in all of history (except, of course, here) and growing without heat.  Can God do this?  Of course!  But why should I assume He has?  I would only jump to that answer if I began this reading insisting I was embarking upon mere narrative.  But the point of the exercise is not to find out how it is narrative; we want to find out whether it is narrative.
 
Day 4 (and I am done).  Luminaries set in the sky.  I confess I do not know what gravitational effects such a sudden appearance of enormous matter in our proximity would have on us—perhaps none.  I will leave that alone.  I am told by the scientists that the stars are billions of miles away and that even light must take its time in getting here.  This creates something of a problem; the stars are for signs and seasons.  That is, they have a functional role in man’s life on earth.  But man is about to make his appearance in less than 72 hours and that means the stellar light will be rather tardy in fulfilling their roles!  The YECs would have me believe that the obvious answer is, “not only were the luminaries created instantly, but the light was created as already reaching us.  This raises a few questions for me: if light is created as already reaching me, at some point it must assume its normal behavior of ‘C’.  But that would mean that at some point it must, relatively speaking, begin to crawl across space.  And until it reaches me, we have no stars in the night sky; and therefore no functional signs.  
 
But there is no end to the ingenious ways of wiggling out of these discrepancies; my question is (and has been) why do I need to invoke scientific speculation, unless I have come to the text determined that it is pure narrative?  When I come to the text without that question already answered, I do not find that I am "obviously" dealing with “mere narrative”.  Perhaps it is mere narrative; I am not excluding that from the possibilities.  But it is not “obviously” narrative.  There is enough doubt to search for other possibilities. And if other genres make better sense of the text, if they answer more problems than raise them, then (is this Occam’s razor?) it is time abandon the suggestion that it is mere narrative.
 
In short, the YECs begin their exegesis by begging the question.
 
Side note: It would be an interesting exercise for YECs to count how many current laws of physics are broken in the first 6 days of creation. 
 
Anyhow, thoughts (better hurry up though, this thread is probably up for a limited time).
 
clb

 

 

 

 

======================================================================================================

 

 

Elsewhere I proposed that YEC is based not primarily on exegesis but on something akin to fear.

 

Strawman. It must be real difficult to conjure something concerning someones position and then tear it down.  The funny thing about this specific Strawman....you forgot to tear it down.  You just left it there.

 

 

Nor will I labor the point that I am not necessarily an OEC; I think the YEC interpretation dead wrong, but I don't necessarily think that the scientists are right.

 

So you're like "Fence Riding"/Switzerland,  neither Hot nor Cold?  You think YEC is dead wrong?  Will you @ some point Support this Statement or just leave it like the Strawman above?

 

That is, the YEC begins first with the need for Genesis 1 to be mere history; then proceeds to look for the “proofs” that it is so. But of course all exegesis or science performed after the conclusion is formed is nothing more than a charade; everything becomes evidence in favor of the verdict, for desperation can find almost anything almost anywhere.

 

Where to begin with this mess?  So what your saying is; it is wrong for us "YEC" to Trust the PLAIN WORD OF GOD first?  So we should go to "science" or Fables or Myths first then use this as our Hermeneutic Filter for the WORD OF GOD?

 

I thought you first Establish a Postulate then Support/Validate/Invalidate that Postulate.  You then call this a "Charade" and "Desperation"  :huh:

 

You want us to first find Support for something outside of GOD'S WORD then go to The WORD to Establish the Postulate?  :huh:

 

So "scientifically" speaking, this would mean instead of this.....

 

1. Observation of Phenomenon

 

2.  Background Research

 

3.  Hypothesis

 

4.  Experiment

 

5.  Gather Analyze Data

 

6.  Draw Conclusions...Validate/Invalidate Hypothesis

 

You want this....

 

1.  Gather Analyze Data

 

2.  Validate Hypothesis

 

3.  Go find Hypothesis

 

???  :huh: :huh: :huh:

 

Do you actually believe the stuff you're writing?

 

 

I believe my proposal is corroborated by the habit of declaring the laws of physics inoperative whenever something astonishingly incongruent to our experience of the natural world is described in Genesis 1.  It is, or appears to me to be, a desperate maneuver.

 

Another Strawman.  Nobody said they were "Inoperative"!!  They were different during the Creation Week than what we observe now....How do we know?  Well a Third Grader can tell you just by a cursory review of the WHOLE FIRST CHAPTER OF GENESIS and specifically.....

 

one for Example (expanded on in Genesis 2:7....Forming Adam).  Forming Adam from the dust of the Ground VIOLATES all Current Known Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry and Myriads of others.

 

See it?     Yea, Truly Desperate :help:     To refute this, Please show me an example of this "forming" a Human Today. Please PM me when this happens.

 

 

For my part, I don’t think so. I was not raised in a context where science and Scripture were at war:

 

It's Not...."Real" Science that is.  You're just conjuring then equivocating, rather stumblingly so, Stories/Myths/Fables with Experimental/Operational Science based solely on the Grounds that those performing then propagating "Stories/Myths/Fables" have the Moniker of "scientists".

 

 

It is near impossible to imagine such a conglomeration of unformed matter hanging out in infinite space.  Do we still have a spherical object before us?  No, for the dome (the expanse) will not yet be created until day 2.  What is it then that keeps the waters from drifting off.  More so, how is it that the waters are not frozen at absolute 0?

 

You state the Bolded........ then you go right into imagining. :huh:   Because you are still "under the spell" (Of which, I systematically tore apart above) that the Physical Universe was the same then as it is Now.

 

 

I am told by the scientists that the stars are billions of miles away

 

They also told us Piltdown Man was our relative, Archaeopteryx was a Feathered Dinosaur, and Soft Tissue can Last for 80 Million Years.

 

And, of course they (and you), are "begging the question" FALLACY with the current Speed of Light and Extrapolating that Back to the Beginning.  Assuming the very thing they (and you) are trying to prove....http://logical-criti...g-the-question/

 

And "scientists" @ current, know as much about Light as they know about Gravity...which isn't much.

 

However, they (the stars) could be that far...it's irrelevant to the YEC position anyway...more on that in a minute.

 

The YECs would have me believe that the obvious answer is, “not only were the luminaries created instantly, but the light was created as already reaching us.

 

No, not the "YECs";   GOD SAID.....

 

(Genesis 1:14-19) "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:  {15} And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.  {16} And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.  {17} And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,  {18} And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.  {19} And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

 

"Give Light" .... "and it was so".  Why would GOD make those lights for signs and seasons, days, and years; if Adam and people following Adam COULDN'T SEE THEM??  It's absolute nonsense to conclude otherwise, IMHO.

 

Let me Identify your problem Sir....You Attempt to reconcile The PLAIN WORD of GOD with what science says who are using a "begging the question" Fallacy (See: Above) and Extrapolations from Numerous Assumptions.

 

You are also forgetting about what GOD SAID multiple times concerning the STRETCHING OF THE HEAVENS, Right?  Just a minor oversight with one of potential hundreds of Unknown/Confounding Variables.  Why not let GOD BE GOD and take HIM @ HIS WORD??

 

 

This raises a few questions for me: if light is created as already reaching me, at some point it must assume its normal behavior of ‘C’.  But that would mean that at some point it must, relatively speaking, begin to crawl across space.  And until it reaches me, we have no stars in the night sky; and therefore no functional signs

 

Actually it Doesn't.  You meant to say the Normal Behavior of "C" now.  Are you aware there actual EXPERIMENTS measuring the Speed Of Light from the Early 1700's through today that show the Speed of Light Faster and Slowing Down??http://www.worldnetd...RTICLE_ID=39733

 

Is it all that surprising given the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (2LOT) with everything in the Universe Increasing Entropy that LIGHT would be Exempt??....Hardly.

 

And given that with the "Stretching of The Heavens" could make a pretty compelling case.  However, having said that.... with Enumerable Potential Unknown and Confounding Variables and since there is NO WAY to KNOW for sure ....I'll just take GOD'S WORD FOR IT SINCE HE HAS BEEN 100% RIGHT WITH THE WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE.

 

 

In short, the YECs begin their exegesis by begging the question.

 

And a Baseless Assertion "Cherry on Top".  Care to Support this statement instead of "Projecting" your "a priori" conviction to this EXACT FALLACY (See: Above) on us??  :huh:

 

 

Side note: It would be an interesting exercise for YECs to count how many current laws of physics are broken in the first 6 days of creation.

 

Why?? Since it is intuitively clear to a 3rd Grader that Man can't be raised from the Ground Today...without breaking all said Laws.  But as I said, I'm waiting on your PM when it happens.....again.  ;)



#16
jerryR34

jerryR34

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 733 posts

 

Very interesting OP.  It seems to me that if one is married to the idea of a literal Genesis, they should not comment on science as science does not do well with presupposition.  As you mentioned (or at least that's my interpretation), it ends up boiling down to faith and supernatural when the tale conflicts with known science/logic.   

 

 

True.  I suppose we could also say the same about those who are strict adherents to the teachings of Darwin. ;)

 

By the way, hi. ^_^

 

Hi.  Yeah, we are all human...



#17
shiloh357

shiloh357

    Royal Member

  • Platinum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,252 posts
Correct.  We are both agreed here.  My contention is that you are doing eisogesis (and yours is that I am doing it).  The point of this exercise is to see what the obvious reading is.

The problem is that I am not actually using eisogesis.  You can contend that all you want, but I am appealing to the language, and literary structure of the text.  That is not eisogesis.  Your contention is false and not based in reality.

 

 

 

Many people off this site; Enoch on this site; you when you say (below) that it is a supernatural event.  If supernatural does not involve the suspension of laws (i.e. laws of nature) then perhaps you had better define supernatural.

God’s power and knowledge transcend the laws of physics.  He can do as He pleases and He can operate supernaturally without breaking any of His laws.  He can circumvent those laws without breaking one of them.  So the contention that creation is a supernatural event doesn’t automatically lead one to argue that the laws of physics were broken or nonexistent.  God is simply not bound by physics.

 

 

This is not entirely true:  in one of your more biographical posts you made it a spiritual crisis.  Either trusting the Word of God or Evolution or the sciences (can’t find it right now).  That is not exegesis.  That is a leap of faith.  One doesn’t reject Evolution because one feels it is incompatible with God’s Word; we must reject evolution because we see that evolution is wrong (on its own terms).  Intellectual honesty requires it—and since God created the intellect and enjoins upon us the duty of honesty, God requires it.

What I said was that I came to point where I could no longer reconcile the claims of the Bible with the claims being made by evolutionists.  I could not have a coherent worldview trying to make two sets of claims fit when they didn’t fit.  It would require a huge amount of intellectual dishonesty on my part to accept evolution while still embracing the Bible as 100% true and accurate. 

 

That is not a leap of faith.  Basic exegesis of the text of Genesis shows that it makes no room for any of the secular theories out there, especially evolution.   If I believe the Bible is true and if I believe it is the inerrant Word of God, then I have no choice but to reject evolution on those grounds.  As it is written, “Let God be true, and every man a liar.”

 

 

The exercise is to test the hypothesis that the “obvious” reading is historical narrative.  If you never made that claim, then maybe I wasn’t addressing you.

The “test” makes no sense unless you have the literary knowledge and skill to know the kind of genre you are reading and what makes it what it is.

 

 

Light as we know it is based on waves and particles.  Trace them back and you will get to a source.  Today, we ultimately get to stars (ours or the billion others).  Back then, you would get (you say) to God.  What would you see once you traced the light all the way back to its source?

God is the one who said let their be light.  He created the light.  He is the source.  I don’t see what you are trying to argue with on that.   I didn’t make it up.  It’s right there in the Bible.

 

Let me try and understand.  On day 6 the light from the sun and moon had reached earth but not the stars?  So when Adam and Eve gazed up into the night sky, they would perceive a moon but not a single star?  Who, based on what you think of the distance of the stars and the speed of light, would have been the first witnesses of an utterly dark sky (apart from the moon) suddenly twinkling into a star bedazzled dome?  Cain?  Enoch?  Abraham?  King David?

I don’t know.  But we know how fast light travels.   We have operaeted under the assumption that on the evening of 4th day, the night sky would have been teeming with starlight and I am simply claiming that it may not be the case.   The sun and moon would definiately be visible because of their proximity.  In time, Adam and Eve would have begun seeing stars at night.  What is the problem in that?

 

People have been trying to poke holes in the YEC model on the basis of starlight.  The argument is that if the stars were created on the fourth day, it would have taken some time for them to become visible.  The assumption is that the stars were visible on the fourth day and the Bible doesn’t say that.  It simply says God made them.  It doesn’t mean they were visible to the naked eye on the earth the minute they were created.  It really isn’t a problem.



#18
Tolken

Tolken

    Advanced Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 322 posts

I am new to this forum, and in my recent move am unable to find my notes on this and various other subjects. So with such excuses out of the way let me just give a brief overview of an OEC/evolutionary reading of Gen. 1:

 

A close reading of Genesis does not have God doing anything but speaking, "And God said". The only creative operative is a command, fiat, and that alone. The sole source of activity with regards to creation was quite simply that God spoke. Beyond the fiat "God made..." is simply explanation and no immediacy of creation should be invoked. Fulfillment is not immediate but explanatory allowing time frames and overlap with a 6 days of commands.



#19
Sheniy

Sheniy

    Junior Member

  • Junior Member
  • PipPip
  • 249 posts

 

Let me try and understand.  On day 6 the light from the sun and moon had reached earth but not the stars?  So when Adam and Eve gazed up into the night sky, they would perceive a moon but not a single star?  Who, based on what you think of the distance of the stars and the speed of light, would have been the first witnesses of an utterly dark sky (apart from the moon) suddenly twinkling into a star bedazzled dome?  Cain?  Enoch?  Abraham?  King David?

I don’t know.  But we know how fast light travels.   We have operaeted under the assumption that on the evening of 4th day, the night sky would have been teeming with starlight and I am simply claiming that it may not be the case.   The sun and moon would definiately be visible because of their proximity.  In time, Adam and Eve would have begun seeing stars at night.  What is the problem in that?
 
People have been trying to poke holes in the YEC model on the basis of starlight.  The argument is that if the stars were created on the fourth day, it would have taken some time for them to become visible.  The assumption is that the stars were visible on the fourth day and the Bible doesn’t say that.  It simply says God made them.  It doesn’t mean they were visible to the naked eye on the earth the minute they were created.  It really isn’t a problem.

 

So...you're saying that on the fourth day the stars were created but not visible? 

 

Given that we know how fast light travels, how can we, right now, see a star that is 100,000 light years away if it takes 100,000 years for light to travel the distance from that star to earth?

 

How are we able to see light that is 100,000 years old if the universe came about 6000 years ago?

 

(Sorry, I'm sure this has been brought up here before)

 



#20
Enoch2021

Enoch2021

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,003 posts

 

 

Let me try and understand.  On day 6 the light from the sun and moon had reached earth but not the stars?  So when Adam and Eve gazed up into the night sky, they would perceive a moon but not a single star?  Who, based on what you think of the distance of the stars and the speed of light, would have been the first witnesses of an utterly dark sky (apart from the moon) suddenly twinkling into a star bedazzled dome?  Cain?  Enoch?  Abraham?  King David?

I don’t know.  But we know how fast light travels.   We have operaeted under the assumption that on the evening of 4th day, the night sky would have been teeming with starlight and I am simply claiming that it may not be the case.   The sun and moon would definiately be visible because of their proximity.  In time, Adam and Eve would have begun seeing stars at night.  What is the problem in that?
 
People have been trying to poke holes in the YEC model on the basis of starlight.  The argument is that if the stars were created on the fourth day, it would have taken some time for them to become visible.  The assumption is that the stars were visible on the fourth day and the Bible doesn’t say that.  It simply says God made them.  It doesn’t mean they were visible to the naked eye on the earth the minute they were created.  It really isn’t a problem.

 

So...you're saying that on the fourth day the stars were created but not visible? 

 

Given that we know how fast light travels, how can we, right now, see a star that is 100,000 light years away if it takes 100,000 years for light to travel the distance from that star to earth?

 

How are we able to see light that is 100,000 years old if the universe came about 6000 years ago?

 

(Sorry, I'm sure this has been brought up here before)

 

 

 

Hey Sheniy,

 

Not all "YEC's" have the same view on Starlight...but I did touch on the subject in post # 15 if you wish to scroll up a few posts or you can just click here: http://www.worthychr...g/#entry2076498






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network