Tiburon
Well-known member
If the "Lord God was their light" as in revelation. Then he wouldn't need to create it.
Old Earth Creationism
- Thread starter inertia
- Start date
inertia
Super Member
Well, no, because each creation day up to and including day six closes with the the literary device: "And there was evening and there was morning.." indicating the entirety of work with a beginning and an end. It's a merism just as "the heavens and the earth" is a literary device used in Genesis 1:1 to express the entire physical universe. Psalm 90:2-6 provides clarification about this particular literary device:
......
"Even before the mountains came into existence, or you brought the world into being, you were the eternal God. You make mankind return to the dust, and say, "Return, O people!" Yes, in your eyes a thousand years are like yesterday that quickly passes, or like one of the divisions of the nighttime.
You bring their lives to an end and they "fall asleep." In the morning they are like the grass that sprouts up; in the morning it glistens and sprouts up; at evening time it withers and dries up." (color emphasis mine)
......
Using the bible to define itself, in this passage morning represents the beginning of a person's life, and evening represents the end of a person's life. Although one's lifespan is unknown to men, and varies from individual to individual, there is a beginning and there is an end. The device represents an unspecified duration with a beginning and an end and is used extensively for the six creative days.
Day seven does not employ this merism - purposefully - because it has not ended yet.
____
Last edited:
Like the one mentioned when God said let there be light on the first day what was the source of that light? So far we only know of one source to supply light in the area being talked about.
He agreed it would be problematic to have the plants created on the third day without photosynthesis and then the sun that would provide the photosynthesis needed for the plants being created on the fourth day.
The light could not have been God himself because after saying let there be light he separated the light he was talking about from the darkness. And so far there is only one source of light in the area being talked about?
I am not confusing them and common sense tells me that only when it is said there was an evening and a morning a seventh day only then will the seventh day be over.
En Hakkore
Well-known member
I agreed it was problematic from a scientific standpoint... but from a narrative standpoint and the limited knowledge available to the writer, he would have understood the daytime cycle (established on the first day) as a source for light and warmth sufficient to sustain the plants on the third day. As your interlocutor pointed out, we're only talking about a single day before the sun itself was created. As to your question directed at me, the light is the bright blue sky the author and his contemporaries saw when they looked up during the day contrasted to the pitch black sky at night, adorned as of the fourth day with the moon and stars. Again, it needs to be realized that this text was written in a pre-scientific context where the dynamics of how the sun interacts with our atmosphere to create that effect was not known and understood to be distinct from the luminary created two days afterward according to the text.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
No because without the sun which according to you was created on the fourth day there could not have been photosynthesis for the plants and thus no plants. We are talking about a scientific standpoint here. And without the sun there would not have been a bright blue sky. Take tonight for example when it gets dark or any other day when it gets dark and show us a bright blue sky? So it is a single day before the sun was created according to you. That means there was there would have been no sun and the sun was needed from a scientific standpoint.
Right during the winter when it is light it is warm out?
Are you saying gen. 1:1 is a separate creation event?
En Hakkore
Well-known member
From a scientific standpoint, the creation account is ridiculous... what is so difficult to understand about this concept?
Kind regards,
Jonathan
It is not your position we are going by and instead we are going by what the bible says. You are like the other carm people who think you can state your position and the discussion is over instead of discussing it.
More knowledgeable than you? You are saying you have references that will back you on how knowledgeable you are about the Hebrew?
Prove to me you are more knowledgeable than him because I can see the ones who back him up?Good grief... you think a retired physicist who likes to dabble in Hebrew and has to self-publish his "booklet" is more knowledgeable than me on the proper exegesis of Genesis 1?Get serious and learn what a peer-reviewed academic resource is... physicists are not experts on biblical interpretation, biblical scholars are. Do you have any of those that you can cite?
You've yet to demonstrate you can read and engage with my posts, let alone a peer-reviewed publication. I wouldn't be so impatient if I were you...
Did I say you did? I asked rhetorically why I would try to prove something I never claimed... in other words, your challenge had nothing to do with what I was arguing for, hence my negative evaluation above concerning your engagement with my posts. Your latest response, to which I will turn shortly, is yet another example of this.
You're equivocating with the word "light" --- there were not luminaries shining on the earth until the fourth day, which is narrated to have occurred in verse 17 (verse 15 is part of the divine fiat). I've already pointed out to you that the Hebrew word for "light" (or), that which was called 'Day' on the first creation day, is different from the Hebrew word for "luminaries" (me'oroth), both of which are nouns and thus not the verb "to shine". Please do read the source material a bit more closely, that way you can avoid your continued exegetical errors...
Kind regards,
Jonathan
Only if you are right and the earth was created on the fourth day would the creation account be ridiculous. Again instead of you saying so like others on carm we will have to go over it real good. I understand that many who know Hebrew probably a lot better than you agree that gen. 1:1 is a separate creation account from the first six days. And if I can not find it what was your position on Exodus 20:11?
The second view is their stated preference. Are they saying the first view can not be considered? I bet that is why they say the view can be interpreted two ways and they are only stating their preference for one view without discounting the other view?
And your peer reviewed scholars says things have come up to make what they are saying untenable.
So he does not understand gen. 1:1 as being separate? Because one person says so that is the end of seeing if that is what it says?I can hardly wait...
Again I have to correct you... the NET is not my source, it was invoked by my other interlocutor as evidence against me and I pointed out the translators (plural, not singular as you continually and erroneously assert) actually favored my interpretation rather than his/hers. As to your claim the NET translators offered no proof, I suggest you go back and read what I quoted from them because they, in fact, do offer some. In any case, my choice as a source in defense of my interpretation is Waltke, so please focus on what he has to say, not the NET translators, who were hostile witnesses for my side in the first place.
I already intimated that peer-reviewed scholarship would be above your pay grade... indeed, your attempt to engage with it above reflects numerous interpretive mistakes. Waltke does not himself have three theories... he is evaluating two different theories, one of which depends on two different translations resulting in a total of three sets of analysis as follows:
Initial Chaos Theory... this appears to your interpretation of the text (at least it was that of my interlocutor whom you seem to have taken over for) and we'll call this Theory #1. Here is what Waltke has to say about it:
Although this view is still supported in modern times, its number of adherents is diminishing. (p. 217) --- note that this was published back in 1975 and its defenders are these days confined to a narrow subsection of apologists with a vested interest in the doctrine of creation ex nihilo at any cost and reconciling the biblical text with whatever the interpreter deems to be scientifically accurate.
A critical reappraisal of the theory does not show this to be the plain and simple meaning. In fact, the theory faces such serious objections as to render it untenable. (p. 217) --- this sounds a lot like part of your summary above, except you seem to erroneously think it was asserted generally about the theories or concerning a theory he endorses. Far from it! This is his negative evaluation of the "initial chaos theory", which my other interlocutor was arguing for and, it would seem, you are also arguing for.
Precreation Chaos Theory... Waltke notes that there are "two variations" of this theory (p. 221), which we'll call Theory #2a and Theory #2b respectively.
Theory #2a understands "verse 1 {as} a dependent clause" and Waltke points out that, even back in the mid-70s, this "view ... is widely held in scholarly circles" (p. 221). This remains the case today and it is reflected in the main translation of the NRSV, but since neither of us are espousing this view, it need not be pursued further... suffice to say that my source rejects it and I agree with him --- indeed, the only part of what you wrote above that accurately reflects the contents of the article is that Waltke does understand Gen 1:1 as an independent clause.
This brings us to Theory #2b, which is the interpretation of Gen 1:1 as a "summary statement" --- this is the one both Waltke and I hold to, as well as the one favored by the NET translators in their notes. I would suggest you thus focus on pages 225-28 where he lays out the case for it and rebut point by point if you still disagree. Here is how he summarizes the view to begin with:
According to this view, verse 1 is a summary statement, or formal introduction, which is epexegeted in the rest of the narrative. It appears to this author {ie. Waltke} that this is the only viewpoint that completely satisfies the demands of Hebrew grammar. (p. 226)
A little later on he writes:
The evidence, therefore, seems convincing that verse 1 should be construed as a broad, general declaration of the fact that God created the cosmos, and that the rest of the chapter explicates this statement. Such a situation reflects normal Semitic thought which first states the general proposition and then specifies the particulars. This structure of thought is consistent with Hebrew grammar and with Semitic literature in which specification follows the broad general statement. (p. 227)
Indeed, in response to the OP, I provided another example of this from the biblical text... namely the narrative about Moses setting up the tabernacle --- it begins with a summary statement (Exod 40:17) followed by the specifics of how and in what order he did so (40:18-33a), ending with an assertion of its completion (40:33b). This same pattern is found in a proper interpretation of the creation account... the summary statement in Gen 1:1, the particulars in 1:2-31 and the assertion of completion in 2:1.
Please read more carefully... Waltke is not here offering his own position, but he is quoting from Martin Luther's commentary on Genesis (p. 217, source cited in footnote 5).
LOL! No doubt the same kind of "errors" you find in my posts, which is to say none at all...
I am saying that is what the author of the text asserts, because it is... the deity fashions a dome that holds back a portion of the primordial waters above it and calls this structure "heavens" (Gen 1:6-8) and on the following day calls the dry ground that appeared after the remaining waters gathered together "earth" (Gen 1:9-10) --- if you are understanding "heavens" and "earth" in any other way, you do so against how the author is defining them in the narrative.
I have already established that the cycle of days began in Gen 1:3-5 with the coming of light in contrast to the darkness... this day's creative acts concludes with reference to an evening and morning, completing "one day" (yom echad) --- there is a 24-hour period in view here and the rest of creation unfolds over the course of a 7-day week including a Sabbath rest. This understanding is reinforced with texts such as Exod 20:11 and 31:17.
Kind regards,
Jonathan
You say the view you agree with states that verse one says God created all the cosmos then in verse 1. Is that correct?
The world he was creating wasn't a world in which we can see God and he would be a light like in revelation. It is a world in which we don't see God and have to live by faith.