Old Earth Creationism

[En Hakkore]

It is not your position we are going by and instead we are going by what the bible says.

The "position" I've been advancing here is a linguistically-, culturally- and historically-grounded exegesis of the creation account

You are like the other carm people who think you can state your position and the discussion is over instead of discussing it.

If that were the case, I wouldn't still be corresponding with you or the OP.

More knowledgeable than you? You are saying you have references that will back you on how knowledgeable you are about the Hebrew?

My knowledge of Hebrew is self-evident to most everyone around these parts... they are my references.

Prove to me you are more knowledgeable than him because I can see the ones who back him up?

Sorry, but I'm not linking to my CV... proof, in any case, is found in the content of my posts, which included a link to a peer-reviewed academic source that backs me up --- you have yet to provide something of similar caliber. Who are these "ones who back ... up" your retired physicist dabbling in Hebrew and why would their opinion be of any concern to me?

Only if you are right and the earth was created on the fourth day would the creation account be ridiculous.

I nowhere stated the earth was created on the fourth day... the earth, defined as dry ground, is said to have been created on the third day. I did state that the sun was created on the fourth day... and yes that (along with a number of other things) makes the creation account ridiculous from a contemporary scientific standpoint.

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.

You've yet to cite one such individual, let alone many.

And if I can not find it what was your position on Exodus 20:11?

The passage you refer to here affirms that the Israelite deity was thought to have created the world in six literal days and rested on the seventh... anything else would not provide a suitable analogue for the Sabbath observance commandment.

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?

The NET translators state that "{t}he following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the 'heavens/sky' did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and 'earth/dry land' did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10)." They consider the first view within the realm of possibility, but strained on account of "the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 {that} break the sequence of the creative work of the first day." As such, they disregard this view as they move forward with their notes, stating without hesitation that "{v}erse one is a title to the chapter" without bothering to talk any more about an alternative. There is a clear hierarchy here in which the first view is acknowledged as being at least syntactically possible, but having little else going for it... we are not dealing with their mere "preference" for one of two equally viable options.

And your peer reviewed scholars says things have come up to make what they are saying untenable.

This sentence is unintelligible, but perhaps regurgitating your misreading of Waltke... he claimed your view was untenable, not mine/his own.

So he does not understand gen. 1:1 as being separate?

If by "he" you refer to my source (Waltke), this is yet another misreading of the article as he does understand Gen 1:1 as a separate clause, a summary statement of the creation that follows.

You say the view you agree with states that verse one says God created all the cosmos then in verse 1. Is that correct?

Yes, but this is an introductory summary of the creative process that unfolds beginning in verse 3... verse 2 establishes the state of things before the deity begins creating.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[En Hakkore]

...but you misconstrue what I have just said. There is a distinction between "at the same time pump out a text miraculously harmonious with everything we know about the universe" and people engaging in the process of gaining understanding and increasing in wisdom.

The bit I've underlined above has nothing to do with the point I was making... the part of my post that you quote above and place in italics may not be a characterization you're fond of, but it accurately summarizes everything you've been posting in our discussions since they started last year --- at every turn you have attempted to interpret the text of the creation account as being in complete harmony with our scientific knowledge. This is, as I was pointing out, at odds with any suggestion that the author was limited by his historical and cultural context... you can't have it both ways or else the account can be legitimately {sic!} interpreted in two mutually-opposing ways.

If spacetime and matter did not have a beginning, like God, this mischaracterization of God's creation would be catastrophic to what many believe is inspired scripture. God is holy, and distinct from everything else, even spacetime and matter.

Your beliefs are duly noted, but they don't come from a reading of Genesis in its own historical and cultural context.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

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.

Did he? I was under the impression that from our scientific point of view it would be problematic. He is averse to reading our scientific understanding of the world into the lives of the early Israelites.
I wonder if the writers of Genesis, as thought by critical biblical scholars to be written sometime after the establishment of the monarchy in Israel in the tenth century BCE or later, would have such a literal, narrow view of the world? IOW, would the writers in Saul and David's time insert some of their own understanding of the world into Genesis 1 and 2?

 

[Caroljeen]

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?

God turned off his brilliance and it was dark. Just as we don't see the light of God now like we will in New Jerusalem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What is that one source of light in the area being talked about?

 

[Caroljeen]

Are you saying gen. 1:1 is a separate creation event?

Maybe, I'm not sure yet. I've always understood it as a summary of what follows.

 

[inertia]

The bit I've underlined above has nothing to do with the point I was making... the part of my post that you quote above and place in italics may not be a characterization you're fond of, but it accurately summarizes everything you've been posting in our discussions since they started last year --- at every turn you have attempted to interpret the text of the creation account as being in complete harmony with our scientific knowledge. This is, as I was pointing out, at odds with any suggestion that the author was limited by his historical and cultural context... you can't have it both ways or else the account can be legitimately {sic!} interpreted in two mutually-opposing ways.


Your beliefs are duly noted, but they don't come from a reading of Genesis in its own historical and cultural context.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Can't?
Maybe I can clarify.

In the diagram that illustrates ancient Hebrew cosmology above, Psalm 104: 5 is one of the passages employed to demonstrate the idea of pillars that support the erets. Although it may be an accurate description of their best model at the time, when I read the passage:

"He established the earth on its foundations; it will never be upended."

The word translated as foundations ( māḵôn ) in English has entirely different connotations today than the immediate audience had at the time. It is a very broad term. It is broad enough to convey a basic understanding that the erets requires support. When I read the passage with my model today: --->

Foundations = pTable

It's good to have an understanding of ancient thought and it's good to have a better understanding. (You can indeed have it both ways.)

___

 

[En Hakkore]

Can't? Maybe I can clarify.

In the diagram that illustrates ancient Hebrew cosmology above, Psalm 104: 5 is one of the passages employed to demonstrate the idea of pillars that support the erets. Although it may be an accurate description of their best model at the time, when I read the passage:

"He established the earth on its foundations; it will never be upended."

The word translated as foundations ( māḵôn ) in English has entirely different connotations today than the immediate audience had at the time. It is a very broad term. It is broad enough to convey a basic understanding that the erets requires support. When I read the passage with my model today: --->

Foundations = pTable

It's good to have an understanding of ancient thought and it's good to have a better understanding. (You can indeed have it both ways.)

___

You're not so much clarifying as proving my point that all you're doing is imposing your modern ideas onto the text... did the psalmist have elements of the periodic table in mind as the foundation of the earth? Of course not... this idea is, by your own admission, yours --- it has absolutely nothing to do with a sound reading of the text within its own historical and cultural context, nor do any of your attempts to reconcile the Genesis creation account with modern scientific ideas. It is good to have both an understanding of how the ancients thought and an improved understanding of the way things are... the problem is that you keep imposing the latter on texts written by the former and try to convince others they can be legitimately read this way. They can't, no matter how hard you try or wish they could be. While reader-response criticism may be in vogue in a world turned upside down at the moment, it is a deeply flawed approach to reading texts... people write to convey information and with the intention of being understood --- the author of Genesis did not and could not possibly share your worldview and knowledge base so it is nonsensical to approach the text with these ideas and hope to come away with anything resembling what the author was trying to convey.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Caroljeen]

Have read about God's principle of accommodation in his dealings with mankind?
John 16:12 is something akin to it.

Greg Boyd Theologian, Pastor and Author of 22 Books

Greg Boyd has provided some very good insights to show that the character of God as popularly understood has some serious flaws.

characterofgod.org

 

[inertia]

Maybe, I'm not sure yet. I've always understood it as a summary of what follows.

If you have the time and the inclination - this - is an interesting read.

__

 

[Nathan P]

Maybe, I'm not sure yet. I've always understood it as a summary of what follows.

It is a separate event. Before the any of the days it says the spirit of God was hovering over the waters which tells us the earth existed before any days of creation. You can see https://lifeandhopeandtruth.com>god>is-there-a-god

If it does not open up type it in on google.

 

[Nathan P]

God turned off his brilliance and it was dark. Just as we don't see the light of God now like we will in New Jerusalem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

What is that one source of light in the area being talked about?

The sun.

 

[Nathan P]

The "position" I've been advancing here is a linguistically-, culturally- and historically-grounded exegesis of the creation account


If that were the case, I wouldn't still be corresponding with you or the OP.


My knowledge of Hebrew is self-evident to most everyone around these parts... they are my references.


Sorry, but I'm not linking to my CV... proof, in any case, is found in the content of my posts, which included a link to a peer-reviewed academic source that backs me up --- you have yet to provide something of similar caliber. Who are these "ones who back ... up" your retired physicist dabbling in Hebrew and why would their opinion be of any concern to me?


I nowhere stated the earth was created on the fourth day... the earth, defined as dry ground, is said to have been created on the third day. I did state that the sun was created on the fourth day... and yes that (along with a number of other things) makes the creation account ridiculous from a contemporary scientific standpoint.


You've yet to cite one such individual, let alone many.


The passage you refer to here affirms that the Israelite deity was thought to have created the world in six literal days and rested on the seventh... anything else would not provide a suitable analogue for the Sabbath observance commandment.


The NET translators state that "{t}he following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the 'heavens/sky' did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and 'earth/dry land' did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10)." They consider the first view within the realm of possibility, but strained on account of "the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 {that} break the sequence of the creative work of the first day." As such, they disregard this view as they move forward with their notes, stating without hesitation that "{v}erse one is a title to the chapter" without bothering to talk any more about an alternative. There is a clear hierarchy here in which the first view is acknowledged as being at least syntactically possible, but having little else going for it... we are not dealing with their mere "preference" for one of two equally viable options.


This sentence is unintelligible, but perhaps regurgitating your misreading of Waltke... he claimed your view was untenable, not mine/his own.


If by "he" you refer to my source (Waltke), this is yet another misreading of the article as he does understand Gen 1:1 as a separate clause, a summary statement of the creation that follows.


Yes, but this is an introductory summary of the creative process that unfolds beginning in verse 3... verse 2 establishes the state of things before the deity begins creating.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

You mean people here on carm are your references? Tell Waltke and the ones who peer review his work to read gen 1 better and before the first day he will be able to determine that the spirit of God was hovering over the waters telling us the earth was around before any of the days. If this does not open type it in on google https://lifehopeandtruth.com>god-is-there-a-god

 

[Nathan P]

If you have the time and the inclination - this - is an interesting read.

__

Enhakkore needs to read that.

 

[Nathan P]

You're not so much clarifying as proving my point that all you're doing is imposing your modern ideas onto the text... did the psalmist have elements of the periodic table in mind as the foundation of the earth? Of course not... this idea is, by your own admission, yours --- it has absolutely nothing to do with a sound reading of the text within its own historical and cultural context, nor do any of your attempts to reconcile the Genesis creation account with modern scientific ideas. It is good to have both an understanding of how the ancients thought and an improved understanding of the way things are... the problem is that you keep imposing the latter on texts written by the former and try to convince others they can be legitimately read this way. They can't, no matter how hard you try or wish they could be. While reader-response criticism may be in vogue in a world turned upside down at the moment, it is a deeply flawed approach to reading texts... people write to convey information and with the intention of being understood --- the author of Genesis did not and could not possibly share your worldview and knowledge base so it is nonsensical to approach the text with these ideas and hope to come away with anything resembling what the author was trying to convey.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

You need to read the link inertia posted which is 469 right now.

 

[Nathan P]

The "position" I've been advancing here is a linguistically-, culturally- and historically-grounded exegesis of the creation account


If that were the case, I wouldn't still be corresponding with you or the OP.


My knowledge of Hebrew is self-evident to most everyone around these parts... they are my references.


Sorry, but I'm not linking to my CV... proof, in any case, is found in the content of my posts, which included a link to a peer-reviewed academic source that backs me up --- you have yet to provide something of similar caliber. Who are these "ones who back ... up" your retired physicist dabbling in Hebrew and why would their opinion be of any concern to me?


I nowhere stated the earth was created on the fourth day... the earth, defined as dry ground, is said to have been created on the third day. I did state that the sun was created on the fourth day... and yes that (along with a number of other things) makes the creation account ridiculous from a contemporary scientific standpoint.


You've yet to cite one such individual, let alone many.


The passage you refer to here affirms that the Israelite deity was thought to have created the world in six literal days and rested on the seventh... anything else would not provide a suitable analogue for the Sabbath observance commandment.


The NET translators state that "{t}he following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the 'heavens/sky' did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and 'earth/dry land' did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10)." They consider the first view within the realm of possibility, but strained on account of "the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 {that} break the sequence of the creative work of the first day." As such, they disregard this view as they move forward with their notes, stating without hesitation that "{v}erse one is a title to the chapter" without bothering to talk any more about an alternative. There is a clear hierarchy here in which the first view is acknowledged as being at least syntactically possible, but having little else going for it... we are not dealing with their mere "preference" for one of two equally viable options.


This sentence is unintelligible, but perhaps regurgitating your misreading of Waltke... he claimed your view was untenable, not mine/his own.


If by "he" you refer to my source (Waltke), this is yet another misreading of the article as he does understand Gen 1:1 as a separate clause, a summary statement of the creation that follows.


Yes, but this is an introductory summary of the creative process that unfolds beginning in verse 3... verse 2 establishes the state of things before the deity begins creating.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Concerning Exodus 20:11 and you say it refers to a literal six days of creation. Since you do not know the word "in" is not in the Hebrew and going by the Hebrew it would read for six days he created and not in six days he created. The word "in" was added by the kjv translators. And exactly what do you mean by it establishes the state of things before God creates things? Do you mean where it says the earth was formless and void? Also Waltke has a lot of detractors as he was fired for being an evolutionist which clouds his view of things.

 

[En Hakkore]

You mean people here on carm are your references?

They're the only ones you have access to since, as I noted, I'm not linking you to my CV. As you clearly won't take my word for it, check in with the OP --- we disagree on the interpretation of the creation account, but s/he can vouch for my proficiency with Hebrew.

Tell Waltke and the ones who peer review his work to read gen 1 better...

Wow, what a stinging rebuttal!

You need to read the link inertia posted which is 469 right now.

S/he linked me to it last year... I've already read it and don't think much of it. When I'm back later today I'll post a thorough critique and respond to your latest post... though I would like to see you document from a reputable source your allegation that Waltke was fired for being an evolutionist. Good luck with that!

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Nathan P]

The "position" I've been advancing here is a linguistically-, culturally- and historically-grounded exegesis of the creation account


If that were the case, I wouldn't still be corresponding with you or the OP.


My knowledge of Hebrew is self-evident to most everyone around these parts... they are my references.


Sorry, but I'm not linking to my CV... proof, in any case, is found in the content of my posts, which included a link to a peer-reviewed academic source that backs me up --- you have yet to provide something of similar caliber. Who are these "ones who back ... up" your retired physicist dabbling in Hebrew and why would their opinion be of any concern to me?


I nowhere stated the earth was created on the fourth day... the earth, defined as dry ground, is said to have been created on the third day. I did state that the sun was created on the fourth day... and yes that (along with a number of other things) makes the creation account ridiculous from a contemporary scientific standpoint.


You've yet to cite one such individual, let alone many.


The passage you refer to here affirms that the Israelite deity was thought to have created the world in six literal days and rested on the seventh... anything else would not provide a suitable analogue for the Sabbath observance commandment.


The NET translators state that "{t}he following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the 'heavens/sky' did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and 'earth/dry land' did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10)." They consider the first view within the realm of possibility, but strained on account of "the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 {that} break the sequence of the creative work of the first day." As such, they disregard this view as they move forward with their notes, stating without hesitation that "{v}erse one is a title to the chapter" without bothering to talk any more about an alternative. There is a clear hierarchy here in which the first view is acknowledged as being at least syntactically possible, but having little else going for it... we are not dealing with their mere "preference" for one of two equally viable options.


This sentence is unintelligible, but perhaps regurgitating your misreading of Waltke... he claimed your view was untenable, not mine/his own.


If by "he" you refer to my source (Waltke), this is yet another misreading of the article as he does understand Gen 1:1 as a separate clause, a summary statement of the creation that follows.


Yes, but this is an introductory summary of the creative process that unfolds beginning in verse 3... verse 2 establishes the state of things before the deity begins creating.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I do not want to know what they disregard. Excluding what they say does the other view carry as much weight as the view they favor?

 

[Nathan P]

They're the only ones you have access to since, as I noted, I'm not linking you to my CV. As you clearly won't take my word for it, check in with the OP --- we disagree on the interpretation of the creation account, but s/he can vouch for my proficiency with Hebrew.


Wow, what a stinging rebuttal!


S/he linked me to it last year... I've already read it and don't think much of it. When I'm back later today I'll post a thorough critique and respond to your latest post... though I would like to see you document from a reputable source your allegation that Waltke was fired for being an evolutionist. Good luck with that!

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I read where he was fired for being an evolutionist and I can probably find it again.

 

[Nathan P]

They're the only ones you have access to since, as I noted, I'm not linking you to my CV. As you clearly won't take my word for it, check in with the OP --- we disagree on the interpretation of the creation account, but s/he can vouch for my proficiency with Hebrew.


Wow, what a stinging rebuttal!


S/he linked me to it last year... I've already read it and don't think much of it. When I'm back later today I'll post a thorough critique and respond to your latest post... though I would like to see you document from a reputable source your allegation that Waltke was fired for being an evolutionist. Good luck with that!

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Just type in on google was Waltke fired for being an evolutionist and you will find many sources. And you only have one person on carm to check about your proficiency in Hebrew?

 

[Nathan P]

The "position" I've been advancing here is a linguistically-, culturally- and historically-grounded exegesis of the creation account


If that were the case, I wouldn't still be corresponding with you or the OP.


My knowledge of Hebrew is self-evident to most everyone around these parts... they are my references.


Sorry, but I'm not linking to my CV... proof, in any case, is found in the content of my posts, which included a link to a peer-reviewed academic source that backs me up --- you have yet to provide something of similar caliber. Who are these "ones who back ... up" your retired physicist dabbling in Hebrew and why would their opinion be of any concern to me?


I nowhere stated the earth was created on the fourth day... the earth, defined as dry ground, is said to have been created on the third day. I did state that the sun was created on the fourth day... and yes that (along with a number of other things) makes the creation account ridiculous from a contemporary scientific standpoint.


You've yet to cite one such individual, let alone many.


The passage you refer to here affirms that the Israelite deity was thought to have created the world in six literal days and rested on the seventh... anything else would not provide a suitable analogue for the Sabbath observance commandment.


The NET translators state that "{t}he following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the 'heavens/sky' did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and 'earth/dry land' did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10)." They consider the first view within the realm of possibility, but strained on account of "the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 {that} break the sequence of the creative work of the first day." As such, they disregard this view as they move forward with their notes, stating without hesitation that "{v}erse one is a title to the chapter" without bothering to talk any more about an alternative. There is a clear hierarchy here in which the first view is acknowledged as being at least syntactically possible, but having little else going for it... we are not dealing with their mere "preference" for one of two equally viable options.


This sentence is unintelligible, but perhaps regurgitating your misreading of Waltke... he claimed your view was untenable, not mine/his own.


If by "he" you refer to my source (Waltke), this is yet another misreading of the article as he does understand Gen 1:1 as a separate clause, a summary statement of the creation that follows.


Yes, but this is an introductory summary of the creative process that unfolds beginning in verse 3... verse 2 establishes the state of things before the deity begiThen when did you say the earth was created?

The "position" I've been advancing here is a linguistically-, culturally- and historically-grounded exegesis of the creation account


If that were the case, I wouldn't still be corresponding with you or the OP.


My knowledge of Hebrew is self-evident to most everyone around these parts... they are my references.


Sorry, but I'm not linking to my CV... proof, in any case, is found in the content of my posts, which included a link to a peer-reviewed academic source that backs me up --- you have yet to provide something of similar caliber. Who are these "ones who back ... up" your retired physicist dabbling in Hebrew and why would their opinion be of any concern to me?


I nowhere stated the earth was created on the fourth day... the earth, defined as dry ground, is said to have been created on the third day. I did state that the sun was created on the fourth day... and yes that (along with a number of other things) makes the creation account ridiculous from a contemporary scientific standpoint.


You've yet to cite one such individual, let alone many.


The passage you refer to here affirms that the Israelite deity was thought to have created the world in six literal days and rested on the seventh... anything else would not provide a suitable analogue for the Sabbath observance commandment.


The NET translators state that "{t}he following narrative strongly favors the second view, for the 'heavens/sky' did not exist prior to the second day of creation (see v. 8) and 'earth/dry land' did not exist, at least as we know it, prior to the third day of creation (see v. 10)." They consider the first view within the realm of possibility, but strained on account of "the disjunctive clauses of v. 2 {that} break the sequence of the creative work of the first day." As such, they disregard this view as they move forward with their notes, stating without hesitation that "{v}erse one is a title to the chapter" without bothering to talk any more about an alternative. There is a clear hierarchy here in which the first view is acknowledged as being at least syntactically possible, but having little else going for it... we are not dealing with their mere "preference" for one of two equally viable options.


This sentence is unintelligible, but perhaps regurgitating your misreading of Waltke... he claimed your view was untenable, not mine/his own.


If by "he" you refer to my source (Waltke), this is yet another misreading of the article as he does understand Gen 1:1 as a separate clause, a summary statement of the creation that follows.


Yes, but this is an introductory summary of the creative process that unfolds beginning in verse 3... verse 2 establishes the state of things before the deity begins creating.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

So you are saying the heavens and the earth were created on different days correct?