How could there be light on day one when the sun is not created until day four?

inertia

Super Member
For the reason provided here I am snipping everything in your post except for the above regarding Waltke's position. Please cite Waltke rejecting his position on the summary position of Gen 1:1 or withdraw the claim that he has done so... thanks.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Waltke didn't state it. Dr. Poythress stated that he did, here ---> GENESIS 1:1 IS THE FIRST EVENT, NOT A SUMMARY.

Here is the conclusion:

"
III. Conclusion

In conclusion, all three of the main arguments for the summary view have superficial plausibility, but none has weight. In addition, as of 2001, Waltke himself no longer holds to the second argument contained in his earlier work (in 1974 and 1975). The summary view is much weaker than many have taken it to be. By contrast, the initiation view makes good sense of the phrase meanings, theology, and syntax of Gen 1:1–2 in relation to Gen 1:1–2:3 as a whole, and beyond (the rest of Genesis and the rest of the Bible). It is the correct view. "

As you can see, Dr. Poythress has reason to believe that Genesis 1:1 interpreted as an event is the correct view. Waltke's second argument is a premise about an implied organization within Genesis 1:2 that doesn't hold.

_________
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Active member
Waltke didn't state it. Dr. Poythress stated that he did here ---> GENESIS 1:1 IS THE FIRST EVENT, NOT A SUMMARY.

Here is the conclusion:

"
III. Conclusion

In conclusion, all three of the main arguments for the summary view have superficial plausibility, but none has weight. In addition, as of 2001, Waltke himself no longer holds to the second argument contained in his earlier work (in 1974 and 1975). The summary view is much weaker than many have taken it to be. By contrast, the initiation view makes good sense of the phrase meanings, theology, and syntax of Gen 1:1–2 in relation to Gen 1:1–2:3 as a whole, and beyond (the rest of Genesis and the rest of the Bible). It is the correct view. "

As you can see, Dr. Poythress has reason to believe that Genesis 1:1 interpreted as an event is the correct view.

_________
Please re-read the bolded portion above from Poythress' article carefully. Is he actually claiming that Waltke is no longer a supporter of the summary interpretation as you asserted in your opening post? No, he's not. Waltke no longer holding to one particular argument for the summary interpretation is not retracting his support for the view as a whole. Please do read your sources more carefully moving forward... thanks.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

inertia

Super Member
Please re-read the bolded portion above from Poythress' article carefully. Is he actually claiming that Waltke is no longer a supporter of the summary interpretation as you asserted in your opening post? No, he's not. Waltke no longer holding to one particular argument for the summary interpretation is not retracting his support for the view as a whole. Please do read your sources more carefully moving forward... thanks.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I remember. Here is the sentence:

A once ardent supporter of the summary interpretation, Waltke, no longer supports the organized universe claim.

[2] Vern S.Poythress, Genesis 1:1 Is the first event, not a summary, WTJ 79 (2017): 97 -121, last accessed online on 6/5/2021

He is not as ardent now as his "organized universe" premise was addressed and found wanting. "A superficial plausibility without weight" feels about right.
_______
 

En Hakkore

Active member
He is not as ardent now as his "organized universe" premise was addressed and found wanting.
So instead of acknowledging the misreading of your source (Poythress), you now shift the plain meaning of what you originally wrote from Waltke no longer supports x to Waltke is not as ardent a supporter of x as he once was. This is still based on nothing that Waltke himself has written, but is an exaggeration of what an already overconfident Poythress writes...

"A superficial plausibility without weight" feels about right.
_______
I'm sure it does feel right to you because Poythress critiques the summary interpretation with presuppositions similar to your own. I would encourage you not only to read your sources more carefully, but consider where they are being published and why. You are citing from the Westminster Theological Journal, which is published under the auspices of the eponymous conservative evangelical seminary where Poythress teaches... he also happens to be the journal's editor. Emanating from a clique such as this, the journal is not designated peer-reviewed within the wider academic community. I trust you understand the importance of peer review in publishing and the implications when it is not...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

CrowCross

Well-known member
Revelation 21 describes the new heaven and earth as well as the new Jerusalem. ( It's beyond my imagination.) I look forward to exploring it when my time is over in this world.

I haven't been keeping up with Russ Humphreys after his initial book "Starlight and Time". There were too many errors in his modified version of General Relativity and no white holes have ever been found. Even so, he should continue to test it as many others are trying to do.

General Relativity stands even today after 100 years of tests. It is a very, very successful theory.

________
Yes, Rev 21 does show light...and as I said, if this is possible the let there be light is the same. I can even stretch it a bit more and say the light was light from the created angels.

Currently I have read several theories why the universe can be old and the earth young..Humphreys is but one. Typically when someone throws the "...How did the light get here in 6,000 years...at me I understand there are theories and the BB doesn't seem to be the only theory.

General Relativity even has its flaws. String theory is getting popular. Newtonian theory is slowly getting replaced with string theories and other theories that require more than out 3 dimensions.

As for now I'm going to stick with a literal Genesis.
 

inertia

Super Member
So instead of acknowledging the misreading of your source (Poythress), you now shift the plain meaning of what you originally wrote

No. The meaning of what I wrote was unambiguous. Here it is:


A once ardent supporter of the summary interpretation, Waltke, no longer supports the organized universe claim.

...and you summarized it as shown in your response here:

from Waltke no longer supports x to Waltke is not as ardent a supporter of x as he once was.

Then you stated:

This is still based on nothing that Waltke himself has written, but is an exaggeration of what an already overconfident Poythress writes...

No. In fact, Poythress presents the summary view of Genesis 1:1 extensively with Waltke's own writing as a literary unity that began in the 1970s. In footnote 7 we read:

"Collins considers Waltke’s article to be “the strongest case” for the summary view. Collins, Genesis 1–4, 54."

Note that Collins is a defender of the initiation interpretation of Genesis 1.1 in contrast to Waltke. Along with many other scholars, "Collins argues that the use of the Hebrew perfect tense at the commencement of a narrative normally refers to an antecedent event." ( page 295) We've discussed this in our previous communications.
.....

It is for this reason that Poythress focuses on Walke as the best representative of the summary view. He even discusses in detail the use of a merism as we did early on in our past discussions with the underlying Hebrew. His analysis was meticulous and based on all of his publications about the subject matter.

Quoting from page 315 -317, section 3:

"Waltke appeals to the fact “that elsewhere in Scripture it is said that God created everything by His Word” (Ps. 33:6, 9; Heb. 11:3). But “no mention is made anywhere in Scripture that God called the unformed, dark, and water state of verse 3 [sic; v. 2] into existence.” This is an argument from silence, and a weak one at that. The verses that Waltke cites, Psalm 33:6, 9 and Hebrews 11:3, and others (Col. 1:15–17; John 1:3) imply that God made everything. The initial watery state of Genesis 1:2 is included by implication in “everything.” ...

"Fortunately, in his 2001 commentary, Waltke shows a change in his position: he affirms that God “made everything.” This change removes the basis for his whole argument in 1975 concerning the alleged theological inappropriateness of God creating a formless earth."

So yes, it is entirely based on Waltke's writings. There is no "exaggeration" or "overconfidence" as shown in the detailed analysis. Waltke showed a change in his position.


I'm sure it does feel right to you because Poythress critiques the summary interpretation with presuppositions similar to your own.

It's not about "feelings" it's about biblical consistency, language analysis, tests, and observations. Apparently, Waltke changed his position due to a reanalysis from biblical exegesis.

I would encourage you not only to read your sources more carefully, but consider where they are being published and why. You are citing from the Westminster Theological Journal, which is published under the auspices of the eponymous conservative evangelical seminary where Poythress teaches... he also happens to be the journal's editor. Emanating from a clique such as this, the journal is not designated peer-reviewed within the wider academic community. I trust you understand the importance of peer review in publishing and the implications when it is not...

The liberal arts don't rigorously employ a scientific standard of peer review. One obvious reason is that mathematically quantifying philosophical arguments can be difficult if not impossible in many cases. Philosophic discussion may not encompass reproducibility, and peer conflict is expected even with access to the same information. That doesn't mean that fruitful exploration cannot be achieved. Logic, anthropological discovery, and historic texts contribute a lot to ongoing understanding.

The current editors of the conservative Westminster Theological Journal are K. Scott Oliphint, Editor; Stephen Coleman, Co-Editor; Brandon D. Crowe, Book Review Editor; and Randall J. Pederson, Managing Editor. Poythress is not listed.
 

En Hakkore

Active member
The meaning of what I wrote was unambiguous.
I agree... what you originally wrote was very clear. You claimed in the opening post of this thread that "Waltke, no longer supports the organized universe claim." This is, to the best of my knowledge, a false claim. Since you made the assertion, there is an onus on you to support it. I asked you in my initial response to do so by citing Waltke. You immediately began back-peddling and in your post here suggested he did so rather inadvertently. When pressed again to support your claim you responded here not by citing Waltke but Poythress discussing Waltke. I was more than happy to leave things where they were after pointing out that you misread Poythress on the matter, but you tried to salvage something of your original assertion in your post here by claiming that Waltke "is not as ardent now as his 'organized universe' premise was addressed and found wanting." That brings us to your most recent post...

It is for this reason that Poythress focuses on Walke as the best representative of the summary view. He even discusses in detail the use of a merism as we did early on in our past discussions with the underlying Hebrew. His analysis was meticulous and based on all of his publications about the subject matter.

Quoting from page 315 -317, section 3:

"Waltke appeals to the fact “that elsewhere in Scripture it is said that God created everything by His Word” (Ps. 33:6, 9; Heb. 11:3). But “no mention is made anywhere in Scripture that God called the unformed, dark, and water state of verse 3 [sic; v. 2] into existence.” This is an argument from silence, and a weak one at that. The verses that Waltke cites, Psalm 33:6, 9 and Hebrews 11:3, and others (Col. 1:15–17; John 1:3) imply that God made everything. The initial watery state of Genesis 1:2 is included by implication in “everything.” ...

"Fortunately, in his 2001 commentary, Waltke shows a change in his position: he affirms that God “made everything.” This change removes the basis for his whole argument in 1975 concerning the alleged theological inappropriateness of God creating a formless earth."
Here you abandon Poythress' article (a wise move since I've already pointed out it doesn't support your initial claim) and focus on his book. Unfortunately, I don't have access to it and you provide too little context to evaluate what is being said. Is that a broad theological claim that Waltke made or is it tied specifically to an exegesis of Genesis 1? The former would not surprise me in the least; he is an evangelical Christian after all. The latter remains to be seen...

So yes, it is entirely based on Waltke's writings.
No, it's not. I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand about this concept. You have done nothing but cite Poythress talking about Waltke's alleged change in position.... you have nowhere cited Waltke himself retracting his support for the summary interpretation (your initial claim). Poythress does not speak for Waltke; only Waltke does. I'm only going to ask this once more... support your original claim that Waltke no longer holds to the summary view by citing from one of Waltke's own publications or retract it.

It's not about "feelings" it's about biblical consistency, language analysis, tests, and observations.
For the record, "feels about right" was your phrase to describe your own engagement with Poythress' critique of Waltke.


The liberal arts don't rigorously employ a scientific standard of peer review.
Your evaluation of how rigorous or not peer review is within the liberal arts and biblical studies in particular is both that of an outsider and irrelevant to the point I made, which was that your source is not classed as peer reviewed because it is a clique journal. If your point was to suggest there is no difference between that and actual peer-reviewed articles, essays and monographs within my discipline, you are gravely mistaken.


The current editors of the conservative Westminster Theological Journal are K. Scott Oliphint, Editor; Stephen Coleman, Co-Editor; Brandon D. Crowe, Book Review Editor; and Randall J. Pederson, Managing Editor. Poythress is not listed.
My information was outdated and for that oversight and mistaken claim I apologize.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

inertia

Super Member
Here you abandon Poythress' article (a wise move since I've already pointed out it doesn't support your initial claim) and focus on his book. Unfortunately, I don't have access to it and you provide too little context to evaluate what is being said.

Oh, I didn't know you could not read the text. That would make communication difficult. FYI: Appendix A in his book is identical to his 2017 paper. Abandonment wasn't within my boundary conditions for our debate.

It may help if I simply showed that Poythress provided additional information in a footnote (#44 in the book) stating: "His change of position is therefore an inference, not a direct statement in his text."

I tried to point that out earlier as shown here:

I don't believe it was a purposeful self-refutation. It was an implied observation based on his work in previous writing.

This observation was based on comparing many decades of Waltke's published work.

It would surprise me a lot if Waltke disregarded his decades-long support for the summary interpretation.

Your evaluation of how rigorous or not peer review is within the liberal arts and biblical studies in particular is both that of an outsider and irrelevant to the point I made...

Okay.

________
 
Last edited:

inertia

Super Member
As I correctly pointed out, there is no necessary connection between these two issues. For example, one could hold to a summary interpretation and at the same time claim that the sun was created by the deity on the first day but its light did not pierce a global cloud cover until the fourth day.

Let's say a person named Henry interprets Genesis 1:1 as a summary statement. Let's also say that Henry believes that everything in spacetime including spacetime itself is eternal like God. This idea seems plausible since it wasn't that long ago (the late 1800s) that physicists had reason to believe that the universe was eternal. Given this scenario, there is no requirement for creating a host star to illuminate a thick cloud-covered water world. It simply exists as God does. Genesis 1:2 is the true beginning. Even if Henry changes his mind and believes today that everything including spacetime was created at some point before Genesis 1:2, it would be an argument from silence because Genesis chapter one never supplies information about creating matter and spacetime. Genesis 1:1 simply summarizes the steps that follow through verse 31.
 

En Hakkore

Active member
Oh, I didn't know you could not read the text.
While I do have a pretty sick personal library and access to several university libraries as well as their online collections, Poythress' book is not among any of them... that is not the least bit surprising since it is not an academic publication.

It would surprise me a lot if Waltke disregarded his decades-long support for the summary interpretation.
I suspect this is about as close to a retraction as I'm going to receive since it embeds the opposite of what you claimed about Waltke's recent position in your thread opener.

Let's say a person named Henry interprets Genesis 1:1 as a summary statement. Let's also say that Henry believes that everything in spacetime including spacetime itself is eternal like God. This idea seems plausible since it wasn't that long ago (the late 1800s) that physicists had reason to believe that the universe was eternal. Given this scenario, there is no requirement for creating a host star to illuminate a thick cloud-covered water world. It simply exists as God does. Genesis 1:2 is the true beginning. Even if Henry changes his mind and believes today that everything including spacetime was created at some point before Genesis 1:2, it would be an argument from silence because Genesis chapter one never supplies information about creating matter and spacetime. Genesis 1:1 simply summarizes the steps that follow through verse 31.
I think our time is better spent critiquing and defending our respective positions rather than musing about hypothetical exegetes. My original point remains that there is no necessary connection between one's interpretation of the relationship between the verses of Gen 1:1-2 and how one understands the creation of the sun on day four vis-à-vis contemporary astronomical knowledge. Now that we've exhausted the sidebar about Waltke's position, let's return to the main topic... I'll give you the lead as to where you want to go from here, keeping in mind that the more you post, the more I will respond to.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

inertia

Super Member
, let's return to the main topic... I'll give you the lead as to where you want to go from here, keeping in mind that the more you post, the more I will respond to.

Sure...

Genesis 1:1
is a summary statement of the creation that follows beginning with 1:2

Was Genesis chapter one intended to be an account of the origins of matter and spacetime? If not, was matter and spacetime considered eternal according to cultural beliefs for the relevant time periods?
 

En Hakkore

Active member
Was Genesis chapter one intended to be an account of the origins of matter and spacetime?
While matter, physical space and time were all observed or experienced by the ancients, the latter two were not interlocking dimensions as we now understand them so "spacetime" is anachronistic terminology for discussion of an ancient creation text. Genesis 1 is an account of the formation of the habitable world and the cycles of days, months and years known to the ancient Israelites, not of the physical space or raw materials.

If not, was matter and spacetime considered eternal according to cultural beliefs for the relevant time periods?
As Michael Coogan points outs, "[n]either the biblical writers nor their counterparts elsewhere were interested in the abstract philosophical question of ultimate origins" (7). Much must therefore be inferred... for example, in the pertinent Egyptian texts time emerges as cyclical and the primeval chaos is described as boundless (Pinch 57-58), which suggests the raw materials have an eternal quality.

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Coogan, Michael D. The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures. Oxford University Press, 2006.
Pinch, Geraldine. Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press, 2002.
 

inertia

Super Member
While matter, physical space and time were all observed or experienced by the ancients, the latter two were not interlocking dimensions as we now understand them so "spacetime" is anachronistic terminology for discussion of an ancient creation text. Genesis 1 is an account of the formation of the habitable world and the cycles of days, months and years known to the ancient Israelites, not of the physical space or raw materials.


As Michael Coogan points outs, "[n]either the biblical writers nor their counterparts elsewhere were interested in the abstract philosophical question of ultimate origins" (7). Much must therefore be inferred... for example, in the pertinent Egyptian texts time emerges as cyclical and the primeval chaos is described as boundless (Pinch 57-58), which suggests the raw materials have an eternal quality.

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Coogan, Michael D. The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures. Oxford University Press, 2006.
Pinch, Geraldine. Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press, 2002.

Psalm 90 ( A prayer of Moses, the man of God. ) The oldest Psalm
verse 2

Before the mountains were born,
before you gave birth to the earth and the world,
from eternity to eternity, you are God.

.......

I agree that the term "spacetime" as a unifying fabric of the universe was not a concept at the time the authors penned scripture. Yet there is reason to believe that the concepts of volume and time were commonplace by necessity, and apparently, the concept of self-existent eternal God before the formation of the earth ( אֶרֶץ ) was understood too. Not planet Earth, of course, as we currently think, but the concept of the erets containing necessary useful material [1]. This, in turn, implies that God unlike matter is eternal as the Psalmist writes.

Eretz.JPG

____________

[1] The graph was generated using Logos Bible Software v6.0a. (see highlighted link above)
 

En Hakkore

Active member
Psalm 90 ( A prayer of Moses, the man of God. ) The oldest Psalm
No one in the academic world takes the Mosaic ascription of Psalm 90 seriously (Rodd 391), it is part of later editorial work on the Psalter... here it serves to open Book IV (Psalms 90-106) and to present Moses as an "archetypal intercessor" in the wake of exile and the failure of the Davidic monarchy expressed in Psalm 89 (Mournet).

verse 2

Before the mountains were born,
before you gave birth to the earth and the world,
from eternity to eternity, you are God.
This evocation of Psalm 90 is both premature and misplaced... I answered your question about how matter was viewed in the cultural background of Genesis 1, but we did not get into how the biblical author himself was interacting with ANE creation myths. There are some significant differences, particularly with respect to the relationship between the Israelite deity and the primordial chaos. The Egyptian creator god, for example, is birthed from it (Pinch 58) whereas in Gen 1:2 the creator's animating force is distinct from and hovers above it. Israel's deity and the primeval chaos are co-existent. As for Psalm 90, its author turns the language of ANE theogonies on its head, having Israel's god as the birthing agent of the world... in less visceral terms, he created it -- that is no different from what we find in Genesis 1. While I would caution against reading too much into the Hebrew עולם in terms of all the baggage our idea of 'eternity' carries (HALOT 1:798), that this Psalmist understands his deity to be eternal is not in direct tension with Genesis 1, which passes over this matter in silence.

I agree that the term "spacetime" as a unifying fabric of the universe was not a concept at the time the authors penned scripture. Yet there is reason to believe that the concepts of volume and time were commonplace by necessity, and apparently, the concept of self-existent eternal God before the formation of the earth ( אֶרֶץ ) was understood too. Not planet Earth, of course, as we currently think, but the concept of the erets containing necessary useful material [1]. This, in turn, implies that God unlike matter is eternal as the Psalmist writes.
You've overstated your case as the Psalmist doesn't make reference to the Israelite deity birthing the raw materials of creation out of which the ארץ was formed, but rather the ארץ itself.

Kind regards,
Jonathan


Works cited:
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner (eds). The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Brill: 2001.
Mournet, Krista J. "Moses and the Psalms: The Significance of Psalms 90 and 106 within Book IV of the Masoretic Psalter." Conversations with the Biblical World 31 (2011) 66-79.
Pinch, Geraldine. Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient Egypt. Oxford University Press, 2002.
Rodd, C.S. "Psalms" in The Oxford Bible Commentary, edited by John Barton and John Muddiman. Oxford University Press: 2001, pp. 355-405.
 
Last edited:

inertia

Super Member
No one in the academic world takes the Mosaic ascription of Psalm 90 seriously (Rodd 391), it is part of later editorial work on the Psalter... here it serves to open Book IV (Psalms 90-106) and to present Moses as an "archetypal intercessor" in the wake of exile and the failure of the Davidic monarchy expressed in Psalm 89 (Mournet).

Although the Mosaic ascription isn't accepted, at the outset Psalm 90 is in fact titled "A prayer of Moses, the Man of God", and it is uniquely designated so by the Psalter. Notably, the individual called Moses is mentioned throughout the whole of book IV ( Psalm 99:6, 103:7, 105:26; 106:16,23. and 32).

This evocation of Psalm 90 is both premature and misplaced... I answered your question about how matter was viewed in the cultural background of Genesis 1, but we did not get into how the biblical author himself was interacting with ANE creation myths. There are some significant differences, particularly with respect to the relationship between the Israelite deity and the primordial chaos. The Egyptian creator god, for example, is birthed from it (Pinch 58) whereas in Gen 1:2 the creator's animating force is distinct from and hovers above it. Israel's deity and the primeval chaos are co-existent. As for Psalm 90, its author turns the language of ANE theogonies on its head, having Israel's god as the birthing agent of the world... in less visceral terms, he created it --

Turning ANE theologies on their proverbial heads highlights major differences between the Bible and other ancient near-eastern beliefs. According to professor N.L. deClasse-Walford (McAfee School of Theology, Mercer University, Georgia, USA)*:

" Psalm 90 is the only psalm in the Psalter attributed to Moses and echoes many of the words uttered by Moses in the Books of Exodus and Deuteronomy. In Exodus 32:12, for example, in the aftermath of the Golden Calf incident, we read that Moses pleads with God to “turn” (שׁוּב) and “change your mind” (נָחַם).

We encounter the same Hebrew words in verse 13 of Psalm 90, “turn” (שׁוּב) and “change your mind” (נָחַם). Freedman (1985:59) suggests that the composer of Psalm 90 based it [the psalm] on the golden calf episode in Exodus 32 and imagined in poetic form how Moses may have spoken in the circumstances of Exodus 32. In addition, the words of Psalm 90:1, “You have been our dwelling place in all generations” echo Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 32:7; and the words of Deuteronomy 32:18 are reiterated in Psalm 90:2:

Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God (NRSV)."

________

* N.L. deClasse-Walford, "The Unheard Voices in Psalms 90,91, And 92", Acta Theologica, Vol. 39, suppl. 27, page 28, Bloemfontein 2019
 

En Hakkore

Active member
Freedman (1985:59) suggests that the composer of Psalm 90 based it [the psalm] on the golden calf episode in Exodus 32 and imagined in poetic form how Moses may have spoken in the circumstances of Exodus 32.
So you agree now that the Mosaic ascription is spurious... glad to hear it. What point were you then trying to make by taking it as genuine and concomitantly declaring Psalm 90 to be the oldest in the collection? Was it simply to infer Mosaic authorship of both this text and Genesis (which he didn't write either incidentally) and therefore that one (Psalm 90) could be used to clarify the other (Genesis 1)? If so, I've already pointed out they are not in tension on the nature of matter and, even if they were, it would be irrelevant since the anthology we call the Bible is not a unified theological treatise.

Turning ANE theologies on their proverbial heads highlights major differences between the Bible and other ancient near-eastern beliefs.
Whether those differences are major or not is debatable. Since I don't see anything new in your post aside from these two agreements with my position, at least in part, the ball is back in your court to volley where you want to go next in our discussion...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

inertia

Super Member
So you agree now that the Mosaic ascription is spurious...

Spurious? I don't think so.

The author, whoever he was, attributed "a prayer of Moses" is based on historic information that is relevant to a Jewish audience. Also the phrase "a man of God" is attributed to OT prophets up to and including Moses (Joshua 14:6). After all, the passage repeats the words of Moses that are also in the pages of Exodus and refers to the creation account in Genesis 1. I have no doubts that the Psalm expresses the belief that God was - before His creation began.

What point were you then trying to make by taking it as genuine and concomitantly declaring Psalm 90 to be the oldest in the collection?

This idea is passed from tradition and expressed in many bible studies. The oldest among a collection of Psalms as far as I am aware, within the dead sea scroll archives are 200 -100 B.C. Psalm 90 is not one of them.

..., the ball is back in your court to volley where you want to go next in our discussion...
 

En Hakkore

Active member
Spurious? I don't think so.
The ascription is a claim to authorship... Moses didn't write Psalm 90, ergo the ascription is spurious.

I have no doubts that the Psalm expresses the belief that God was - before His creation began.
If you think that creation involves the primordial chaos, you are overstating your case, as I already pointed out.

The oldest among a collection of Psalms as far as I am aware, within the dead sea scroll archives are 200 -100 B.C. Psalm 90 is not one of them.
What point are you trying to make about the absence of Psalm 90 from the Qumran Psalter?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

rossh

Active member
Genesis 1:1-3 – Is the passage a sequence of events or a summary?
_______________________________________________________________________

“How could there be light on day one when the sun is not created until day four?” [1]

Biblically, the first creation day was set in motion with God saying “Let there be light”. Here, the time between God’s command, and created light that propagates to the atmosphere is unstated. It may have gradually increased in radiance or it may have arrived at its maximum level of intensity. What remains is stated in verse five where night coexists with the day.

View attachment 1280
Day and night simultaneously

Nevertheless, the light from celestial objects was not introduced until the fourth creation day (Genesis 1:14), with God saying “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky…”. Here is where light from celestial objects finally provided the energy required to view night and day on the surface of the Earth. Earlier in the narrative Genesis 1:2 tells us that at one time the earth was in a state of darkness and covered in deep water. This is consistent with Job 38:9 that discusses the foundations of the earth, stating: “...when I made the storm clouds its garment, and thick darkness its swaddling band…” The deep-water description is also consistent with a relatively recent discovery in the Australian outback.

The answer to the question is clear. Our host star, the sun, was created in the heavens as outlined in Genesis 1:1. Its light did not penetrate the storm clouds until the fourth creation day.

While this conclusion relies on the traditional interpretation of Genesis as it relates to successive passages, two other mainline interpretations are commonly discussed [2]. The traditional interpretation appeals to a syntactic linkage between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 via the key term “the earth” linking backward to Genesis 1:1. The narrative structure of Genesis 1:1-2 also uses the Hebrew perfect tense referring to an antecedent event. Theologically, this interpretation contends for the absolute sovereignty of the monotheistic God. Namely, the true God that rules everything and contrasts itself with ancient Near Eastern narratives where gods are born and there are conflicts between deities.

Another interpretation assumes that Genesis 1:1 is simply a subordinate clause written as: “In the beginning, when God created the heaven and the earth, the earth was without form…” and this interpretation is fading after receiving many credible refutations [3]. A third mainstream interpretation is the summary view and it has a lot of support [4]. Here the expression “the heavens and the earth” describes an organized universe and does not view verse 1:2 as an unorganized state, and Genesis 1:1 is read as a summary statement describing the events of verses 2 through 31. The summary interpretation provides a sense of the expression ‘the heavens and the earth’ that includes the concept of an organization. Difficulties occur when trying to make the distinction between the sense of the expression from its referent. In Genesis 2:1 the expression “all the host of them”, for example, refers not only to celestial bodies but the birds, plants, and animals. Here the hosts are distinguished and include inhabitants, therefore, in this light, the context of the compound expression “the heavens and the earth” designates two spatial regions. If one specifies “organized” as a finished state, as the universe looks now, a tension is created with 2:1 because the passage states that the heavens and the earth were finished. This implies a process where the heavens and the earth were in flux. A once ardent supporter of the summary interpretation, Waltke, no longer supports the organized universe claim.



[1] John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One; Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, (Downers Grove, IL: (InterVarsity Press, 2009), P. 56
[2] Vern S.Poythress, Genesis 1:1 Is the first event, not a summary, WTJ 79 (2017): 97 -121, last accessed online on 6/5/2021
[3] Collins, Genesis 1–4, 50–52
[4] Waltke, “Part III.” Genesis, 58-59
.. If, when God created the stars, then there would NOT have been any light issuing from those stars, unless physical light had been created. Does your hand held torch or your car lights not shine when turned on ? Oh yes, so how about glowworms ? do they act like our sun and give us sunburns, well,, just saying, they do produce light, don't they ? OOOH!,, lets not forget a " lightening " bug ?
 

inertia

Super Member
.. If, when God created the stars, then there would NOT have been any light issuing from those stars, unless physical light had been created.

Hi rossh -

Indeed. God is capable of doing anything. He decided to reveal himself to people ranging from ancient times past - to human cultures throughout the world today using the books of the Bible.

One reason celestial objects were provided was stated in Genesis 1:14: "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:"

Apparently, He also made a promise to operate the heavens and the earth by physical laws too.

"But I, the LORD, make the following promise: I have made a covenant governing the coming of day and night. I have established the fixed laws governing heaven and earth." ( Jeremiah 33:25 )

Unless a star is in its formation stage, and still accreting material into its core, it will radiate light until it cannot any longer.

Bok Globule.JPG
This is a very, very thick, large dust patch
called a "bok globule" accreting material
before igniting and producing a star.

In God's physical creation, stars radiate light due to nuclear reactions.

Does your hand held torch or your car lights not shine when turned on?

Unless there is a chemical reaction provided in the torch or a power supply to produce light in the lamp of a car, there will not be light in these two scenarios.


Oh yes, so how about glowworms ?

The same is true with glowworm LED lights. If you meant biological glowworms, their energy is provided by a chemical reaction.

.... OOOH!,, lets not forget a " lightening " bug ?

😄 I haven't seen one of these since I was a child. Chemical reactions supply the energy here.
 
Top