Paul,
in your post of 4 June (Paul Seely <PASAlist@aol.com>, 4 Jun 2002
03:10:57 EDT, asa-digest V1 #2833), you once more claimed that all
day-age interpretetions of Genesis 1 violate the text. Already from
earlier contributions by you, I concluded that you believe that all
interpretations involving a harmonization with modern knowledge of the
history of the universe and of life are, quite generally, irrelevant,
beside the point and worthless. So you also applied this criticism to
the interpretation which Armin Held and I proposed [A. Held & P. Ruest,
"Genesis reconsidered", PSCF 51/4 (Dec. 1999), 231-243;
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1999/PSCF12-99Held.html].
On this basis, discussing any textual details with you is rather
annoying. Nevertheless, for the benefit of any on this list who might
not have followed our earlier discussions, I thought it necessary to
point out once more that the primary reason for our divergent views are
not just some philological details (for the Hebrew, I primarily depend
on Armin), but derive from our very different points of departure -
philosophically and possibly even theologically. As a second objective,
I need to show once more that your arguments - in this last post of
yours, as in all previous ones, - are (IMO) mostly irrelevant and beside
the point. The different conclusions we reach are basically a
consequence of different starting points. Unless one remains conscious
of these, the perspective and context of the whole is lost, and any
discussion of the details you pick will be fruitless.
You and the authors you cite start from a situation which may have been
prevalent throughout much of church history, and even until quite
recently for theologians and some other scholars not involved in the
natural sciences. In that situation, the apparent contradiction read
from Genesis 1 as implying "light before the sun" seemed to leave but
one choice, namely to discard from this text all aspects of historical
narrative, while retaining the obvious theological message.
It is well known how the often destructive theological liberalism in
19th century Germany (rooted in enlightenment humanism, and adopted in
the 20th century in the English speaking world, as well) dealt with such
problems in general: the text was pronounced a myth (in the case of
Gen.1 said to be adopted from elswhere). Unfortunately, this general
approach was firmly established in theological academia and survived
even when newer findings (archeology etc.) called into question much of
the original assumptions on which this type of "higher criticism" was
based. Today, even many evangelical theologians accept a lot of the
"scholarly findings" and "facts" of such ideas as the documentary theory
of the Pentateuch and its associated trappings, even while mixing and
modifying it with newer, more correct observations and findings.
On the other hand, Armin Held and I, as well as others, are convinced
that an inspired text (no matter how you understand inspiration, as long
as God is not eliminated entirely) may easily contain multiple aspects
of importance. Once a theological message and a poetical form have been
discerned in a biblical text, that may very easily not be the whole
story. If we take seriously the (I think solidly biblical) idea that the
Creator of the universe and humans is the same God as the One who
reveals himself through Scripture, there is no reason to suppose that
Gen.1-2 cannot, in addition, contain other aspects, such as cosmological
and historical correctness, or other things unknown to the inspired
writer. If genuine predictive prophecy by biblical writers is possible
(and what Christian would not admit so much?), there is no reason to
reject similar divine guidance in texts dealing with the distant past
similarly unknown to the authors.
To accept that God _could_ apply a guiding hand in this world's events
(either in a historically discernable way, or through "hidden options"
based on quantum events and other seemingly random bifurcations) if he
wanted to do so, does not necessarily imply that he _did_ act in some
such way. Various arguments are proposed against our complementarity
interpretation - but all of them appear to be misplaced.
First, it is said that the Bible is not a science textbook, and of
course we fully agree. There is a fundamental difference between trying
to use the biblical texts to find out something as yet _unknown_ about
knowable or researchable realities in the natural sciences, on the one
hand, and trying to see whether a reasonable concordance is possible
between the text and _known_ scientific facts, on the other hand. Only
the first type of endeavour (which we repudiate) would be misusing the
Bible as a "science textbook". The medieval model of a fixed number of
fixed types of different modes of interpretation for any biblical text
is clearly unrealistic and meaningless. But so is insisting on just one
specific mode of interpretation (the perceived "genre" of the text). And
insisting that God cannot or would not, through the same text, speak
understandably both to the original recipients and to people of other
times and cultures is just as unrealistic. Now, using modern scientific
language to paraphrase and enlarge on a biblical text is quite different
from postulating scientific language in the text. A given textual
formulation may be compatible with different world views considered
scientifically correct in different cultures. And it may be equally
compatible with objective reality - even where the current science
doesn't yet know the reality.
A second claim is that trying to find an interpretation harmonizing with
modern science is a faulty kind of apologetics, as science is a moving
target, so yesterday's apologetic arguments will occasionally have to be
discarded as erroneous. We agree with this, and we are not attempting to
formulate "the true" interpretation of a text. The text itself must
always be clearly distinguished from its interpretations, just as
scientific data have to be distinguished from their interpretations. The
data are givens, and interpretations are _always_ open to question. By
the way, the claim that the Bible cannot be infallible because we don't
have any originals is a red herring. We have multiple, often independent
manuscripts for all biblical texts in the original languages,
occasionally containing variant readings, so we are in a position to
estimate their textual reliablility, and are therefore able to adjust
the confidence we place in our interpretations accordingly. We also know
that there cannot be a "proof" of God based on human findings or logic.
Even a demonstration that a biblical text contains facts known today
(e.g. by science), but unknown at the time of writing, will never
"prove" God.
Our motivation is apologetic indeed, but in quite a different (and, we
think, legitimate) way. We think that the majority of thinking
non-Christians are put off by what they see as the dominant ways
Christians interpret Genesis: they are perceived as either young-earth
creationist (YEC) or liberal-mythologist, i.e. either opposed to science
or opposed to divine inspiration. Of course, this extremist perception
is badly oversimplified, but this is how most non-Christians apparently
think. On this basis then, what would the Bible and the Christian
message have to offer? - they would ask - theology, which is
_impossible_ to check, based on views of ancient people mistaken about
many things we _can_ check and know to be in error? We believe that in
view of these people it is important to demonstrate that it _is_ indeed
possible to integrate belief in solid biblical inspiration with solid
science and reality. It is not a question of proving something to them,
but of moving stumbling blocks out of their path.
A connected problem in Christian, rather than non-Christian, circles is
that a perceived failure of the mythologists to take seriously God's
Word drives large numbers of believers into the YEC fold, thereby
ruining their (and the Church's) testimony vis-a-vis many
non-Christians. It is important to show them, as well, that it is at
least feasible to harmonize solid divine inspiration with solid science.
Here also, there is neither a possibility nor a need for a "proof".
Conceivability is sufficient.
A third claim is that divine kenosis (God emptying himself) is a
characteristic not only of his revelation in Christ ("He emptied
himself..."), but also of his revelation in the written Word and of his
revelation in creation. The implication is, the claim goes, that no
biblical text may be interpreted to say something its human author could
not know, on the basis of what was generally known in his time and
culture, God having limited himself to purely natural possibilities. But
such implications just do not follow. Even apart from the clearly
prophetic Bible passages, we know that God is free to reveal whatever he
deems appropriate - or to visibly or invisibly intervene in any matters
he chooses to. He is sovereign, and we are in no position to impose any
philosophical rules of behavior on him. All one can do is try to
formulate a self-consistent (in our limited judgment) biblical theology
and propose tentative philosophical models of God's activity consistent
with biblical theology. We agree with the three aspects of kenosis
formulated, but not with the conclusion drawn about what God may or may
not have revealed or done. In "Genesis reconsidered", we wrote:
"The biblical texts were written by fallible humans, who were dependent
on their own culture, with their language, a certain amount of knowledge
and certain errors. But this does not automatically imply errors in
their writings. The Bible claims to be inspired by God. He designed it
for all cultures, but letting it be contaminated with gross errors would
compromise it in some of them. As the Creator is its ultimate author,
interpreting a biblical text merely within the framework of ancient Near
Eastern culture is inadequate. A biblical writer was guided to select,
from his own vocabulary, words and phrases compatible with reality, even
while perhaps holding some erroneous belief. But a myth masquerading as
prophetic narrative revealing God's creation would be inconsistent with
God's character of truth. The Bible is not equivalent to any other book.
It might contain information beyond the ken of its writers."
A fourth claim is to protest, as you are doing, that the "historic
interpretation of the Church" and "the consensus of modern Old Testament
scholars" goes against a day-age interpretation of Genesis 1. To natural
scientists, an appeal to authority doesn't count much, particularly in
the absence of up-to-date interaction with opposing views (as is clearly
the case in what you and your authorities claim). But even from the
Bible itself we may glean an attitude quite different from appeals to
human authority.
"It is quite legitimate to reconsider, in view of new findings, a
long-standing traditional interpretation of biblical texts. The Bible
itself presents some striking examples of such reinterpretations. Job's
friends were mistaken in their orthodoxy. Even Job himself had to
'retract and repent in dust and ashes.' The Pharisees, very serious
Bible students, separated the prophecies about the suffering Servant of
God from the Messiah. They were wrong, as could be seen in Jesus Christ.
Even his own disciples had to be led to a fresh view of Bible passages
they 'knew' very well, when they found his tomb empty, and when he
'explained to them in all the Scriptures what referred to himself. (1)'
(1) Job 42:6; Luke 24:27. We are to study God's Word (Isaiah 34:16; Ezra
7:10; Psalm 119) and his works (Psalm 111:2; Ecclesiastes 1:13), and to
judge tradition and teaching on the basis of external facts (Luke
7:19-22; Matthew 7:15-20; cf. 13:26) and Scripture (Acts 17:11)."
("Genesis reconsidered")
Therefore, we consider it quite legitimate to propose - tentatively, as
we did - a new interpretation of Genesis 1:1-2:7, and we certainly have
the right to expect to be taken seriously, without being bludgeoned with
"Church tradition" and "scholarly authorities" who have never considered
our proposition, but at most a few quite different or obviously more
limited ones (there is not just a single "day-age" interpretation). One
of the "authorities" you are adducing is Meredith Kline, whose 1996 PSCF
article we mentioned as irrelevant in our paper, and who apparently had
already published a similar view 40 years earlier. It appears that it is
mainly due to lack of a convincing solution to the perceived "light
before the sun" conundrum that the myth theory has spread so widely. We
are certainly ready for open discussion, but we haven't yet heard of any
convincing theological, linguistic, or other argument invalidating our
proposition.
From the way you treat these questions, I get the impression that you
are apparently unwilling to enter into a fair discussion. It seems to me
that you are limiting yourself to picking out a few details here and
there, and then interpreting them in the context of _your own_ myth
model, instead of (at least also) in the context of _our_ proposition.
Apparently, you don't even consider our alternative starting point to be
a conceivable working model. In this way, of course, an open and fair
discussion is not possible.
If I remember correctly, you never addressed any of the main points of
our model. Let me just reiterate a few of the significant indications in
the Hebrew text:
(1) "toledoth" (2:4): generations, derives from the verb "holid" (to
beget) and is a "technical term" for lines of descent and family trees;
(2) "min" (1:11-12): has the primary meaning "split", "separation",
"descent" and therefore emphasizes the derivation from a common origin
and a permanent separation from it;
(3) "yatza'" (1:12,24): never unquestionably designates creation, but
the coming forth of preexisting things out of an environment given by
the context, e.g. the land "caused" already existing "living souls" "to
come out" onto the dry land;
(4) "righeph" (1:2): God's life-giving Spirit hovering or "brooding"
over the waters of the primitive Earth.
To these basic considerations, I'd like to add some comment on a few
details you are adducing in your post mentioned:
You quote Driver (1887) on Gen.1:14: "The writer expresses, as
explicitly as it is possible for language to do, his sense that the
luminaries had no existence prior to the Fourth Day". But the text just
says there were no "me'orot" (lights illuminating the Earth's surface)
before, and there is no indication of any creative act ("bara'"): sun
and moon originated "in the beginning" (v.1).
You quote Kline (1958): "Moses is certainly not suggesting merely that
hitherto hidden heavenly bodies now became visible on earth." How does
Kline know what Moses thought? - and what the One inspiring Moses
thought?
With respect to all seven other scholars you mention (1950 ... 2001),
you claim: "As to the meaning of the Hebrew text, obviously the above
scholars have seriously considered the text and are not just speaking
off the cuff." Unfortunately for your claim, _none_ of those quotations
mentions any kind of day-age theory or other attempt at harmonization
between text and physical reality. They all just claim categorically,
"the sun was created on day four", without any justification given for
this statement. Are we to conclude that none of them thought of a
different possible interpretation? Or that they didn't know of any of
those that were or might have been available in their time? Or that they
didn't try to deal with them?
Interestingly, of these, Walton (2001) states (as quoted by you): "If we
were to ask what the Israelite understanding of the physical structures
connected with light were that allowed it to exist independently of the
sun, [we would have to speculate]." Obviously, one speculation is that
they thought there were no lamps at all connected with light. Or the old
Hebrews just might have been more practically minded, distinguishing
between lamps and their light...
To illustrate that "Let there be" (Hebrew "yehee") in v.14 does not
indicate an
act of creation, we pointed to an obvious parallel in the same text, in
v.3, where it similarly says "Let there be light" (Hebrew "yehee 'or"),
where nothing is created, but light penetrates the darkness. You brush
this aside as "just assertions... begging the question in both cases",
but without giving any reasons.
You claim: "As far as the above scholars are concerned, it is evident in
their comments that they believe the Hebrew text is saying that light
was created on the first day apart from the sun". This, again, is no
argument, but a retreat to "authorities". Some important points in the
text include:
v.1: "the heavens and the earth" include the sun;
v.2: "tohu", in the Bible, is invariably negative: formlessness, waste,
vanity by turning to idols, as opposed to light; "ghoshek", darkness,
cf. the root "gh-s-k", to keep back (namely the light); v.2 deals with
the Earth only, not the universe;
v.3: "let there be light", without mentioning any act of creation
("bara'"), and it lightens up on the Earth (not in space, where there
had been light before).
I had noted that for "Let there be" in v.14, it doesn't say "yihyoo"
(plural), which would refer to the origin of the many lights, but
"yehee" (singular): it
seems to introduce one single process, which then resulted in the
coming-to-be of many lights. Here, you correctly object that Hebrew,
when the verb comes first, "not uncommonly" employs a singular verb with
a plural subject or object. However, in Genesis 1, this is the only such
case; everywhere else, the plural is used to begin with ("Let the waters
teem ...", v.20, etc.). But insofar as this is a rather secondary point
in our arguments, you are cheating in putting it into a place of
prominence. Of course, we also have a few weak indications supporting
what we otherwise demonstrated with strong ones, such as "ma'or" (light
shining, light rays), "^asah" (to make, prepare, develop), "natan" (to
give), and "raqia^" (expanse). I should have formulated this one
("yehee") more tentatively.
You claim that a "ma'or" is defined as "a luminary, light-bearer, lamp,"
and that literally it means "place of light." Well, this literal meaning
is not so much different from a local collection of light, a "place of
light" in the sky, where the light of the sun's apparent disk is
emphasized, rather than the light-bearing object, the sun as a body. You
agree that "ner" is a word for lamp; but, you say, so is "ma'or". You
claim that the normal Hebrew word for the light rays or the light
emanating from a lamp is not "ma'or", but simply "'or".
We question this interpretation. E.g., Exodus 39:37 mentions the
lampstand ("menorah") of pure gold with its lamps ("ner"), the row of
lamps ("ner") and all its accessories, as well as the oil for the light
("ma'or"). All the equipment is mentioned first, and after that comes
the oil for the _illumination_, or light rays (modern language) to
emanate from those lamps, not for yet another piece of equipment. There
are also other texts showing clearly that "ma'or" is the illumination,
not the lamp (Gen.1:14,15,16; Ex.25:6; Ex.27:20; Ex.35:8,14,28;
Lev.24:2; Num.4:9,16; Ps.74:16; Ps.90:8; and Ezek.32:8 which I mentioned
in the post attacked by you, which contrasts the lights, "ma'or", with
darkness, "ghoshek", also used in Gen.1:2).
You quote a Hebrew lexicon as defining "'or" as "light which emanates
from a body" as in Isa 30:26, light of the moon and of the sun, or Ps
78:14, light of fire. You say that as a "place of light" the meaning of
"ma'or" may overlap somewhat with the meaning of "'or"; but you claim
that, "since it can mean 'lamp' and Hebrew lexica do not even mention
the meaning 'light rays,' one cannot depend upon the word alone as
proving that Day four is talking about making light rather than lamps".
This sounds sort of confused. Textual use is certainly more convincing
than lexica alone. And it is certainly not our only argument about day
four. By the way, we didn't claim light was "made" (de novo) on day
four, but that God "developed" it by changing its quality in the
atmosphere. For a lampstand, we clearly have "menorah". Of course, "'or"
in v.3 also emanates from a body, i.e. the sun which was created "in the
beginning".
You continue: "Further, since 'or, light itself, was already created on
Day one, a creation of light on Day four does not fit the context." Now
this is definitely too much picking and twisting - a clearly false
rendering of what we said. Did you not (re)read our text? We never
claimed light was "created" on day four (or day one, for that matter).
What we said is that the light sources evolved in the epoch of "the
beginning" (v.1), when God created the universe. Of course, this
initiated light emanating from each one of them (at various times).
Later, in "day one", diffuse light ("'or") or brightness began
penetrating the darkness covering the primitive Earth, and still later,
in "day four", when atmospheric conditions changed in a certain way, the
lights ("me'orot") finally came visibly through the previously opaque
cloud cover (and/or haze) as individually distinguishable and
localizeable types of light.
You ask: "But, where does Genesis say that the sky is so darkened or
overcast before Day four that the sun, moon and stars cannot be clearly
seen? This is an addition to Scripture." First, we have "ghoshek"
(darkness, v.2), which is derived from the root "gh-s-k" (to keep back).
And later, we have the waters (cloud cover) above the "raqia^" (expanse,
v.7), which are also mentioned explicitely.
You call such explanations "an addition to Scripture." This is clearly
an eclectic use of statements intended to illuminate, clarify, or
describe a suggested interpretation! If the interpretation is yours, you
call it "exegesis", "consensual interpretation" and "scholarly" - but if
the interpretation is ours, you call it "eisegesis", "reinterpretation",
"logical fallacy", and "ignorance of the Hebrew language"!
Your accusation is: "The Word of God is not the final authority in
Concordism." This is another ad hominem, unworthy of an honest
discussion. It's an unfair insinuation that we, in contrast to yourself,
of course, place our final trust not in the Word of God, but in
something else. _Who_ tries to find a concordance between the Word of
God and reality?
Peter Ruest
-- Dr. Peter Ruest, CH-3148 Lanzenhaeusern, Switzerland <pruest@dplanet.ch> - Biochemistry - Creation and evolution "..the work which God created to evolve it" (Genesis 2:3)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 18 2002 - 11:08:40 EDT