Jump to content
IGNORED

Genesis 1: the obvious reading??


a-seeker

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  1
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  223
  • Content Per Day:  0.06
  • Reputation:   27
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/07/2014
  • Status:  Offline

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:

Hmm...fascinating. I'm going to look into that more.

This also can be evidence of a big bang, you know. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  8
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  649
  • Content Per Day:  0.18
  • Reputation:   99
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  02/21/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Starlight?  I have long wondered if stars really are analogous to our sun and are really as far away as is commonly thought (based on red shift, I believe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

"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.

I do find it interesting to hear/read people claim that the Bible accurately portrays science, yet there are several things written in Genesis 1 which violate science left and right.

 

 

 

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.

 

I agree that reading Genesis 1 without any presuppositions paints an entirely different picture than the traditional 6-[24 hour time periods] creation account I was raised to believe.

 

And the more I hear explanations that try to bring me back to that view, the more confused I feel about the text.

 

 

So, this is why I would rather forget trying to make a scientific narrative out of Genesis and focus on the theological narrative it creates. It makes much more sense this way.

 

 

And when someone claims that Genesis 1 has to be believed as a scientific narrative in order for the rest of the Bible to be believed as historically accurate, my only thought is along the lines of "that's your problem, not mine" - but I cannot think of a polite way to say that. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although Genesis Chapter One Is Not By Any Means Some Fellow's Book Of Science

 

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Genesis 1:2

 

It Is The Step By Step Log Book Of Our Creation

 

And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. Genesis 1:7-8

 

Written From The Direct Observation

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

Of Our Creator

 

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:26-27

 

In Whom There Is No Lies

 

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

 

Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

 

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

 

For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. 1 Peter 2:21-25

 

So Will One Use Their Free Will To Believe

 

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11:3

 

Or Will One Turn To The Books Of Shadow Knowledge For Their Hope

 

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160

 

~

 

All Are For Now, Free To Choose In Whom They Will Believe

 

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4

 

As For Me....

 

Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee. Psalms 119:11

 

~

 

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

 

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Your Brother Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

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

 

Well, I should clarify.  I am not makinga  dogmatic claim.  I am saying that if the stars were not immediately visible, it isn't a problem.  I am not claiming, as fact, that the stars were not visible the day they were created. 

 

My point is that if they were not visitble with the naked eye by someone standing on the earth, it would resolve some huge problems.  Critics of the YEC have always assumed that the stars had to be visible on day they were created, but that assumption forces YECers into a corner and they end up coming with imaginative scenarios as to how starlight could be visible on day one when those stars are too far away to be be seen by the naked eye on that day given that we know how fast light travels.  This is has led YECers to suggest that light moved faster at that time, or that God creaed starlight in transit and other such nonsense.

 

However, if the starlight didn't have to visible (and the Bible doesn't say it was) on the same day they were created, then we can forego the issue and trying to dream silly scenarios about distant starlight.   Besides when you look in the Scripture the moon is really the major player when it comes to marking the seasons and God's signs. The Hebrew calendar is based on the moon, not the stars.

 

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)

 

 

When you look up at the night sky, what makes you think you are looking at 100,000 year old starlight?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

I do find it interesting to hear/read people claim that the Bible accurately portrays science, yet there are several things written in Genesis 1 which violate science left and right.

 

 

More accurately, the Bible reveals that God isn't bound by what scientists claim is or is not possible.

 

So, this is why I would rather forget trying to make a scientific narrative out of Genesis and focus on the theological narrative it creates. It makes much more sense this way.

 

You appear to have a narrow definition of what theology entails. Over the years, I have learned that theology encompasses a lot more than I realized.   It appears that when you use the term "theological,"  you are referring to a more "devotional" aspect of the text.

And when someone claims that Genesis 1 has to be believed as a scientific narrative in order for the rest of the Bible to be believed as historically accurate, my only thought is along the lines of "that's your problem, not mine" - but I cannot think of a polite way to say that. Sorry.

 

I think the claim is that the Bible's overall credibility is threatened if the Bible got it wrong in Genesis.   You are framing the arguement incorrectly.   The point is that if the Bible did get it wrong in Genesis, then there are some necessary trust issues that some people have with other parts of the Bible.

 

I also think that you seem to be unable to make the distinction between a scientific narrative and an historical narrative.  Your responses seem to blur lines between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

More accurately, the Bible reveals that God isn't bound by what scientists claim is or is not possible.

Then YEC'ers should stop trying to make Genesis 1 fit with science or believable scientifically if it all happened outside of our current "laws of nature" and "laws of physics".

 

I also think that you seem to be unable to make the distinction between a scientific narrative and an historical narrative.  Your responses seem to blur lines between the two.

 

In our culture, "historical narrative" is presented "scientifically"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357

 

More accurately, the Bible reveals that God isn't bound by what scientists claim is or is not possible.

Then YEC'ers should stop trying to make Genesis 1 fit with science or believable scientifically if it all happened outside of our current "laws of nature" and "laws of physics".

 

I didn't claim that anything happened outside the laws of nature or physics.   I said that God is not bound by what scientists say is possible.   Scientists are not infallible sources of information and God simply overruled the claims of scientists when He made the earth.

 

 

I also think that you seem to be unable to make the distinction between a scientific narrative and an historical narrative.  Your responses seem to blur lines between the two.

 

In our culture, "historical narrative" is presented "scientifically"

 

I am not aware of anything in our culture that demands that "historical" and "scientific" mean the same thing.   claiming something is true historically isn't a scientific claim.  it simply means that the account in Genesis belongs to a particular literary genre.   When I say it is historical, I am making a textual claim not a scientific claim.  I guess some in our "culture" need to come to grips with that reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  10
  • Topic Count:  5,823
  • Topics Per Day:  0.76
  • Content Count:  45,870
  • Content Per Day:  5.97
  • Reputation:   1,897
  • Days Won:  83
  • Joined:  03/22/2003
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/19/1970

I didn't claim that anything happened outside the laws of nature or physics.   I said that God is not bound by what scientists say is possible.

I know of no single "miracle" that went outside of the laws of physics an nature.

Water into wine?

Giving sight to the blind?

Raising the dead?

Parting the Red Sea?

The Creation Museum, Answers in Genesis does everything it can to explain Genesis 1 within scientific parameters.

What you are explaining here is that Genesis 1 took place via what we call "miracles".

Thus, according to you, Ken Hamm is wrong, and all creationists whoever tried to make scientific inquiry into the past fit into the Genesis 1 account because not a single miracle has ever been able to fit with science.

 

I am not aware of anything in our culture that demands that "historical" and "scientific" mean the same thing.   claiming something is true historically isn't a scientific claim.  it simply means that the account in Genesis belongs to a particular literary genre.   When I say it is historical, I am making a textual claim not a scientific claim.  I guess some in our "culture" need to come to grips with that reality.

Because we think with scientific mindsets. Telling history in our culture and way of thinking is about relaying facts for facts' sake. Was the Bible written with "facts for facts' sake in mind"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  405
  • Content Per Day:  0.11
  • Reputation:   98
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/27/2014
  • Status:  Offline

Though perhaps "light" poses a more difficult area in understanding the Genesis 1 creative sequence there are reasonable possibilities.  It has been noted that the use of "asah" does not necessarily imply "create" but rather produced from existing material. Genesis 1:1strongly suggests an all encompassing act of creation of everything in the universe. Any number of Bible scholars ( Archer, Walker, Grudem, Harris, Boise, etc.) support this reading as it pertains to the fourth day. So that the sun, moon, and stars became visible on the fourth day. Again, a direct reading of Genesis certainly supports indefinite time for God's commands to be accomplished as by the fulfillments as explanatory.

 

One is certainly welcome to doubt the accumulated knowledge of science as regards - star distances and age of the universe.  I would think to do so would require demonstrating the flaws in parallax, stellar motion, inverse-square law, etc. and essentially question geometry and math. 

 

"We cannot with consistency employ the printing press, the railroad, the telegraph,(we would say computers, GPS, Jets, and iPhones) in the propagation of our gospel, and at the same time denounce as evil those activites of the human mind that produced these things."  J Gresham Machen 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...