Re: [asa] Light, waters, days of Genesis

Phil,
   
  That is an interesting paper covering the key points of two important verses. I can't say I agree with all of it -- my criticism would be taking us off-topic -- but I do like his view of the dilema, as he explains, of not having seed for want of a cultivator. That makes the verse more sensible.
   
  I don't see the need for revealing actual waters to Moses to meet some basic pyschological reassurance need. [Actually, I think food and shelter, not water, are the two most often stated as the two primary needs. Surprisingly, this was brought-up in Sunday school this week.]
   
  What is different about my scenario is that it makes predictions which are testable by science. Light bursting forth, accretion disks appearing as an ocean of water, and a protoplanet describable as "without form and void". These have been beyond the ability of astronomers to discern, but that is changing quickly.
   
  Time will tell.
   
  GeorgeA Cooper
   
  

philtill@aol.com wrote:
  George wrote:
> Moses stated in chapter 2 that no rain had ever come as a mist provided the watering. Hi George,

I think the best reading of this verse is that the mist is just ordinary rain. When it says, "but a mist used to rise..." it would be better translated "but a mist began to rise...," which is to say that God then began the process of ordinary rain. To see why this is such a strong interpretation you'd have to read it in the original paper, which is here:

http://www.thirdmill.org/files/english/theology/92974~9_27_99_7-13-34_PM~TH.Futato.Rained.1.pdf

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
To: philtill@aol.com
Sent: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 11:31 am
Subject: Re: [asa] Light, waters, days of Genesis

      Phil said: I would suggest starting at Genesis a different way. Instead of saying, "how can I make what I see in the text match what we know from modern science," we should say, "how would Moses have expected his original audience to understand the text?"
   
  That is a reasonable point, but the ability Moses had to explain to others what he saw would be predicated on how well he understood what he observed. We just don’t have enough detail to have a clear picture of what he saw. This in itself is evidence that he did not understand it himself. In such cases, simply writing what was observed is the best that can be done. I suspect that is what happened.
   
  As new scientific evidence emerges, new scenarios become possible for Genesis. I don’t think they should be regarded as ad hoc attempts, but must be understood as conjecture or hypothesis, nonetheless. It is discouraging to see so many attempts that appear as if we are trying to squeeze 20 lbs. of potatoes into a 10 lb. sack, but what if we discover a larger sack. Let’s see if they fit!
   
  Only in the 20th century has there been any observations of nascent star systems that would allow objective knowledge of what Moses might have seen, assuming we consider the scenario I offer. The number of known galaxies in the universe at the turn of the 19th century was a total of one – our Milky Way. Edwin Hubble was the one that provided the substantial evidence to increase that number. It is the Hubble Space Telescope that has increased the number of observable galaxies to 131 billion. What is true for galaxy observations is being followed today with proplyds (protoplanetary disks) and exoplanet discoveries. This offers new evidence that should not be ignored in any exegesis of Genesis since it addresses stars and planets.
   
  For example, Moses would have never expected his audience to understand deuterium fusion or accretion disks.
  Agreed, he would not have understood these things himself, nor does his account require that understanding since the real purpose of his writing is to give credit to God for being the creator. There was no need for God to have taken an astronomer along to accomplish His purpose.
  When he said, "waters above the heavens" he would have expected his audience to wonder, "is there water above the heavens? Ahh yes, we know about it because it falls down and waters the earth." So they would have thought about rain. So this is what Day 2 is talking about.
  Yes, that is one possibility, but it assumes the author did understand what he was observing. However, it doesn’t seem to fit because it states that the firmament (ie Heaven) was established between the waters, not a good place for Heaven. Further, rain comes from clouds, and no clouds were mentioned. All that was stated by Moses was that waters were above and below, describable only as waters, no doubt, due to his very limited understanding of astronomy.
  If it meant something obvious to the original audience, and if Moses didn't go to pains to keep them from thinking that obvious thing, then obviously that is what Moses wanted them to think.

  Ok, but why assume Moses understood what he was observing? I prefer the idea that Moses was not given any advanced astronomy lessons prior to his days with God. He did not understand what he saw, but no scientific understanding was required to accomplish the real purpose for the passage, namely to give God the credit for Creation. So, I don’t think the ignorance of his readers was the issue, rather he was, essentially, just as ignorant as they were in such matters and not capable of much articulation.
  
This "rain water" interpretation is confirmed in Psalm 104. That Psalm praises God for what he made during each of the 6 creation days. He starts out saying how God clothes himself in light (perhaps a reference to Day 1?), and how he sets the pillars of his upper chambers [in the sky] in the waters (perhaps a reference to Day 2?). Then it goes more definitely through the other 4 creation days. When he gets to the plants in day 3, he talks about how God waters these plants from his upper chambers. This is the same term "upper chambers" that he had poetically stated as the place God sets his pillars in the waters, and so this is a reference to Day 2 "waters above the heavens" that fall down and water the plants. So we see that the waters above the sky were indeed interpreted by the Psalmist as a reference to ordinary rain.

  Yes, that is a possibility, and this is a helpful reference, thanks. However the writer of Psalm 104 did not tie any of this directly to the creation days of Genesis. Much of it is obvious allegory: light as a garment, heavens a curtain, ministers are made a flaming fire, Earth’s foundations immovable, etc. If God had dramatically clothed Himself in light when it was first seen by Moses, why leave it out of the Day 1 account? A clear possibility is that God did not do this at that time.
  Also, the “upper chambers” being in the waters that brought forth rain for the plants can only be understood from a terrestrial observer. Earth did not exist prior to day 3, but Moses would have used terrestrial terms to help him describe what he saw while in space and before Earth’s formation. Indeed, how could he have any other terms to work with?
  
Also, if Genesis 1 surely must reference rains somewhere. Genesis 1 is a polemic against worship of the Canaanite and/or Egyptian gods. The Hebrews were an agrarian society and completely dependent on the rains to survive, and so they were frequently tempted in later times to pray to Baal to send the rains. It would be important for them to know that Yahweh, not Baal, is Lord over the rains. So as a polemic Genesis 1 would be woefully inadequate if it failed to address what was arguably the most important issue of all -- who controls the rains! But where in Genesis 1 does it discuss rains? Only on Day 2 if anywhere. So again, it is most plausible to conclude that Day 2 is indeed a reference to ordinary rain water.
  A fair point, but I disagree. Moses stated in chapter 2 that no rain had ever come as a mist provided the watering. Again, I believe that Moses is once again only stating what he observed and should not be understood to be a claim against the Earth every receiving rain elsewhere or in an earlier time. Moses is in a special place and time, once again. It is here where Adam comes from the ground. Also, there is no need to address rain if no Earth exists. Moses may certainly have strong interest in seeing waters for drinking purposes, but they would not be required until after the Earth had formed. However, if what he saw actually looked like a watery body, he could easily have described it as such. Accretion disks might just look like an ocean to such an observer, given proper illumination. [These won’t be easy to find due to the glare of the bright neighbors. However, anti-glare devices for telescopes are being designed to assist with exoplanet observations.
 These will work even better for accretion disk imaging.]
  
For "let there be light," the Hebrews would have imagined an ocean sitting in darkness, and then suddenly light shines upon the ocean and the sky is no longer black. What caused that? As far as the text is concerned, it doesn't matter. The important thing is that God is the one who made it so that light shines on the surface half the day, leaving darkness for the other half.
  We don’t know what he was referring to regarding the darkness that was on the “face of the deep”. It may have been simply outerspace. We do know he gave an account of the Spirit of God moving, or hovering, over the face of the waters. It is fair to assume he was able to see the waters, which means they were not in darkness.
  Also, the author knew that he was not on Earth as he stated the Earth was without form and void. He knew he was in a new environment, but is limited in using the terms he knows. Moses, along with probably everyone else, knew the source of daylight – the Sun. Sunlight is just as important as rain and food; no Sun, no rain or food.
  â€¦, or it might have been intended as an actual sequence of events, in which case we must conclude that the sunlight eventually got through to the dark of the Earth for some reason after the earth already existed (Day-Age hypothesis).
  But there was no Earth for this light to travel to. The third day is when Moses gave credit to God for its creation. Light was on the first day. Let’s not make light of the fact that sunlight is daylight, (sorry, bad pun).
  But it couldn't be the beginning of stellar fusion because Moses' original audience would have understood it to say that the Earth's ocean waters already existed before the light began, and if we want to concord that with science then we have to conclude that it took place long after stellar fusion had already begun.

  I don’t understand this. Why would fusion necessarily precede water formation? Water is common in nebula prior to stellar formation. The Sun does not produce much, if any, water even today. Oxygen is expelled from stars late in their life.
   
  The idea that the first light came from the Sun, which called named it Day, makes some sense to me. Moses was describing what he saw in his own words and terms, so waters need not refer actual H2O if what he saw simply looked like an ocean. This may prove to be the case for some early accretion disks with proper illumination.
  Many books have been written on the meaning of the Days of Genesis, including the view you mention below.

  Yes, and how many agree with each other. The answer is very open since the author did not give detailed information. He was giving credit to God as creator, but he did state things which allow the scrutiny of scientific investigation. [Religions that avoid such statements are less vulnerable, but they are also less believable.]
  Give each of these authors an update to current astronomy, then ask them to give a revised exegesis. How many have understood the Earth to be the center of the universe? Science is an enrichment to our understanding of God’s creation, it should be used as such even in the interpretative process as this is important context to that process, at least in the few areas where science does affect the account.
  Thanks, Phil, for taking the time to share your thoughts.
  
---------------------------------
  More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

    
---------------------------------
  More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Dec 4 21:23:28 2007