From: allenroy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Sat Oct 11 2003 - 00:45:27 EDT
George Murphy wrote:
> Sure, but first a generality. Naturalism does not hold sway over the Bible, but
> the Bible speaks about the real world and when it does, we often have to look at the
> world in order to understand what the Bible is talking about. Biblical geography is a
> case in point. We find out what biblical references to "Jerusalem," "Egypt,"
> "Damascus," "Nazareth," "the Jordan," "the great sea" &c are talking about, not simply
> by reading the Bible, but by studying geography, archaology, &c. These particular
> sciences (like all "secular" disciplines) does not have a magisterial role in theology
> (which is what you're rejecting) but a _necessary_ ministerial one.
Agreed.
> Now for a specific, Genesis 1 & 2. I start with the belief - as you do - that
> these texts are true & authoritative. But in what ways are they true and
> authoritative?
>
> OK, Gen.1 & 2 (or 1:1-2:4a & 2:4b-25 to be more precise) could be historical
> narratives or not. But a careful reading of them _as_ historical narratives shows that
> they don't agree. The order of creation of living things (plants, non-human animals,
> humans, male & female humans in one case & male human, plants, non-human animals, female
> human in the other) is one indication of that.
>
> Allen, I know that your inclination right now is to disagree with my last 2
> statements & argue that the accounts can be harmonized. But please try to resist that
> inclination & suspend disbelief for a bit. If you don't, you won't be able to
> appreciate the argument I'm presenting.
>
> Since these texts are true, they can't both be accounts of historical events.
> & that being the case, it might be that neither is an account of historical events. We
> have reached that conclusion from study of the texts themselves, from evidence internal
> to scripture.
I suppose it depends upon which translation of the Bible you choose to read. For instance, the NIV reads:
Gen 2:4b [NIV]
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-- [a reference to the Creation Week]
(vs. 5
1. and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth [a post-sin development]
2. and no plant of the field had yet sprung up [a post-sin development]
3. for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth [a post-sin development]
4. and there was no man to work the ground, [a post-sin development]
vs 6,
but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground -- [as originally created])
vs.7
-- the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man
became a living being. [during the Creation Week of verse 4b.]
vs. 8
Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; [a reference to what had already been done during the
Creation Week] and there he put the man he had formed.
vs. 19
Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. [a reference to
the origin of beasts of the field and birds during the Creation Week] He brought them to the man to see what he would
name them;
vs. 20
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was
sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the
rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
So. the events of Chapter 2 are:
1. Adam created and put into the previously made garden.
2. Adam names those previously made animals that were brought to him by God [not every animal that had been created].
3. Eve is made from Adam rib.
The related events found in Chapter 1 are:
1. Garden Created on Day 3.
2. Birds made on Day 5
3. Land animals made on Day 6
4. Adam and Eve made on Day 6
Items 1 to 3 were all created previous to the creation of Adam and Eve. So, what's the problem. All Chapter 2 does is
tell us in more detail what happened on Day 6. [And there is a hint of what is to come after sin]
Of course, if you believe that the KJV is the only version to use, then we have other issues to deal with. And just
because some Bible scholars argue that "had been" is not a proper translation, so what, there are plenty of other just as
competent scholars who say it is. [That argument simply degenerates into appeals to authority.] Further, the context of
Genesis 1 and 2 together calls for the use of "had been" because it resolves all apparent conflicts.
[please note, this is not MY invention or interpretation, but I like it. :) ]
> You said:
> "The internal evidence (comparison of Gen. 1 & 2) has already given us some reason to believe that the Bible doesn't
> have to be interpreted in a way that requires YE."
I don't see that a comparison of Gen 1 and 2 calls for any other reason than to take the Creation Week as 7 rotations of
planet earth. [Of course I believe that "the beginning" of Gen 1:1 was an event long before the Creation Week that
begins with vs. 2. See why below.]
> You said:
> External evidence - from science - points to OE. [i.e. radioisotope abundances]
Since I already believe in an OU, radioisotope abundancies are not an issue with me. [more below]
> You said:
> Therefore interpreting both Genesis and the scientific data in a way consistent with OE is the best choice.
The way I see it, Genesis is consistent with 1) an Old Universe with radioisotope abundancies [not to mention vast
distances] and 2) a Creation Week of 7 planet rotations dealing with planet Earth. I don't see that an Old Earth
(meaning life on the planet is old as the universe is old) has any support.
> Note that this does not mean giving science based on MN a magisterial role in
> theology. OTOH, we have to recognize that we haven't reached the conclusion that the
> earth is old simply from studying scripture. That study may open the possibility, but
> it is only the study of the world itself that tells us that that's the best option.
My conclusion that Gen. 1:1 refers to the universe and not the Creation Week is based on a literary structure noticed
first by Wiseman that implies that Moses edited about 11 old manuscripts into the one account of Genesis. That
structure, still found throughout Genesis, consists of 1) a genealogy, 2) a narration, and 3) a colophon. As seen in
Genesis 1:1-2:4a we have 1) 1:1, genealogy; 2) 1:2-2:3, narration; and 3) 2:4a, colophon. Thus 1:1 is a distinct event
from and antecedent to the narration given in 1:2-2:3. [We could look at the other 11 sections of Genesis that have this
same literary structure sometime if you want.]
How long of an interval is there between 1:1 and 1:2-2:3? It is possible to put into this time interval the creation of
the angels, including Lucifer, the fall of Lucifer, and the resulting war in Heaven by which Lucifer was cast to this
planet, where we have become, through the choice of our first parents, actors in a theater for the universe, displaying
the ultimate result of sin to the rest of the universe. Since it is inconceivable that all this could happen in less
than 3 rotations of planet earth (i.e. when the garden was planted and the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil was put
in it), then the universe is older than the Creation Week -- perhaps vastly older. So, when one looks at the universe
and finds that it is possible to interpret vast distances as involving millions and billions of light years, or when one
finds radioisotope abundancies which can be interpreted to imply vast ages, once can possibly accept such interpretations
as having some validity for the universe as a whole.
Thus, my acceptance of an Old Universe is based upon interpretation of the Bible and not upon empirical, physical data.
That data is, instead, interpreted within my world view based upon a Biblical interpretation. I don't believe this
because, as you say above, "[its] the study of the world itself that tells us that that's the best option." Rather, its
the Bible that does.
> Of course there is still a lot that has to be dealt with. E.g., how does one interpret Ex.20:11 or Mk.10:6-8?
Lets go for it!
Allen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 11 2003 - 00:46:06 EDT